Dismissed

Yogesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2023CW/3946/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the cancellation of candidature and selection for a Grade-III, Level-II English Teacher post. The High Court held that since the petitioners' degree was obtained before the university got NCTE recognition for the specific course, they were ineligible for recruitment under the RTE Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; recruitment orders quashing rejected as they were legal and justified.

Yogesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/2019

¶4

Yogesh Sharma S/o Shri Shrigopal Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Sharma, Resident Of Sevgon Ka Mohalla, Near Satsang Bhawan, Ward No. 22, Merta City, District Nagaur.

¶5

Priyanka Sharma D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Wife Of Shri Yogesh Sharma,, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Sevgon Ka Mohalla, Near Satsang Bhawan, Ward No. 22 Merta City, District Nagaur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director/commissioner (Elementary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶10

The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nagaur.

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4609/2019

¶15

Priyanka Sharma D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, W/o Shri Yogesh Sharma, By Caste Sharma, Resident Of Sevgon Ka Mohalla, Near Satsang, Bhawan, Ward No. -22, Merta City, District- Nagaur.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶19

The Director/commissioner, (Elementary Education) Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶20

The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nagaur.

¶21

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.

¶22

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

¶23

[CW-3946/2019]

¶24

2023:RJ-JD:41489]	(2 of 11)	[CW-3946/2019 ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. K.R. Saharan.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. K.K.Bissa,AGC.

¶25

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment

¶26

Reserved on 01/12/2023 Pronounced on 05/12/2023

¶27

Since both the instant petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3946/2019, while treating the same as a lead case.

¶28

1.1. The prayer clauses of the instant petitions read as under:

¶29

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/2019 :

¶30

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

¶31

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-11) , issued by the respondent No.-2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set aside qua the cancellation of petitioners’ candidature/selection on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, in English Subject in pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-4) .

¶32

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned selection list dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-12) , issued by the respondent No.-2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set aside.

¶33

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue petitioners’ appointment/posting orders on the post of Teacher GradeIII, Level-II, in English Subject in pursuant to the

(3 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-4) and petitioners may be allowed to join on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, in English Subject with all consequential benefits.

¶38

(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

¶39

(v) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

¶40

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4609/2019 :

¶41

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

¶42

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue petitioners’ appointment/posting orders on the post of Teacher GradeIII, Level-II in English Subject in pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-2) and order dated 22.08.2018 (Annexure-9) and petitioners may be allowed to join on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, in English Subject with all consequential benefits.

¶43

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶44

(iii) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

¶45

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the petitioners, in addition to their other academic qualifications, have acquired Graduation Degree i.e B.A. in English Subject from Om Prakash Joginder Singh (OPJS), University, Churu in the academic year 2014-15. The respondents issued an advertisement no.01/2018 dated

(4 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

31.07.2018 for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II in English subject.

¶50

2.1. The petitioners applied for the aforesaid post and after the examination for the same were conducted, the petitioners obtained the marks within the cut off criteria, and therefore, the respondents vide order dated 03.09.2018 declared the cut off marks for the purpose of documents verification for appointment on the post in question.

¶51

2.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 26.09.2018 issued directions to all Chief Executive Officers of respective Zila Parishads to verify the documents pertaining to qualifications of the concerned candidates. The respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 28.02.2019 has however, cancelled the candidature/selection of the petitioners for the post in question on the ground that the petitioners did not join the post in question.

¶52

2.3. After the rejection of the petitioners’ selection, the respondents provisionally selected the candidates from waiting list and also came out with the tentative dates for appointment/posting orders on 05.03.2019.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order stated that the petitioners did not join the post in question, and due to which the candidature/selection of the petitioners was being cancelled, thus, the said ground for cancellation is highly illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶54

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner no.2 earlier participated in the Rajasthan Primary School Teacher Direct

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

(5 of 11)

Recruitment Competitive Examination, 2016 wherein the same qualification in question from the OPJS University was acquired and verified. Therefore, the respondents itself verified the qualification of the petitioners in the year 2016, and now at the time of the recruitment process in question, they have taken the impugned action which is highly illegal.

¶59

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that other similarly situated candidates, who have obtained the graduation qualification of B.A. (Additional) in English subject from OPJS University, Churu in the year 2014 have already been given appointment on the post in question pursuant to the recruitment process of the year 2016. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned action of the respondents being arbitrary is not justified in law.

¶60

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the OPJS University is a private university and it was included in the list of the recognized Universities by the University Grant Commission (UGC) published on 03.12.2013, and therefore, the graduation degree in question acquired by the petitioners is valid as it was acquired from a recognized University, and thus, there is no requirement of any approval from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

¶61

On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the candidature of the petitioners was cancelled on the ground that they acquired B.A. (Additional) English from OPJS, University during academic session 2014-15

(6 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

i.e. prior to the year 2016-17, whereas the OPJS University was granted recognition by the NCTE only in the academic session 2016-17. Therefore, as per learned Additional Government Counsel, the petitioners do not have the required qualification in question from a recognized University.

¶66

4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners are not holding the relevant qualification for appointment on post in question, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioners selection does not suffer from arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.

¶67

4.2. It was also submitted that in the 250^th Meeting of the Northern Regional Committed (NRC), National Council for Teachers Education held from 19^th February to 3^rd March, 2016, permission was granted to the OPJS University for conducting the course in question only from the academic session 2016-17.

¶68

4.3. It was further submitted that similar controversy had already been decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Hitesh & Ors Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13046/2018, decided on 04.07.2019 ) wherein it was held that unless the course is recognized by the NCTE, the said degree after completion of the said course would be of no significance.

¶69

4.4. It was also submitted that rejection of the petitioners’ candidature is thus justified, as the same was done strictly in accordance with law.

¶70

In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Hitesh & Ors. (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

(7 of 11)

because the said case was related to validity of para 2 of the NCTE minimum qualification notification, which stipulated that the Teachers for the purpose of appointment in school under the Right to Education Act, 2009 should possess a diploma or degree in the Course in Teachers Education recognized by the NCTE.

¶75

5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶76

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith judgment cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the petitioners are possessing graduation degree i.e B.A. (Additional) in English subject acquired from the OPJS University in the academic year 2014-15. The respondents issued the advertisement for the post in question, pursuant whereto the petitioners submitted their application. After the examination for the said post, the respondents issued the list of cut off marks, and as per the petitioners, they have obtained the marks within the cut off criteria. Thereafter, the respondents called the petitioners for documents verification process. Subsequently however, the respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 28.02.2019 has cancelled the candidature/selection of the petitioners on the post in question on the ground that the petitioners did not join the post in question.

¶77

This Court further observes that the petitioners have acquired the qualification of B.A. (Additional) English Subject from the OPJS, University in the year 2014-15, but at that time the said

(8 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

University was not recognized by the NCTE; the necessary recognition to the said University for conducting the Course in question was granted only from the academic session 2016-17 onwards.

¶82

8.1. This Court also observes that the OPJS University has awarded the degree in question to the petitioners without any recognition from the NCTE. As per the petitioners, the requisite recognition was granted from the academic session 2015/16 as reflected in the writ petition, whereas the Minutes of the aforementioned 250^th Meeting of the NRC, NCTE as held reflects that such recognition was granted from the academic session 2016-17 to the OPJS University for conducting the course in question.

¶83

Relevant portion of the said Minutes of Meeting is reproduced as hereunder:-

¶84

“The 250^th of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC), National Council for Teacher Education was held from 19^th February to 3^rd March, 2016 (Part-13) 03.03.2016 at NRC, NCTE, Jaipur.

¶85

The minutes of 250^th meeting were confirmed with the following modifications:

¶86

316. OPJS University, Plot No.39, Khasra, Street No.39, Village- rawatsar Kunjala, Post Office-Sankhu, Tehsil/Taluka- Rajgarh, District Churu, Satate- Rajasthan, Pin Code- 331303	BA, B.Ed., B.Sc. B.Ed.	The original file of the Institution alongwith other related documents NCTE Act, 1993, Regulations and Guidelines of NCTE published from time to time were carefully considered by NRC and following observations were made. The Committee decided that recognition be granted to the

(9 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

institution for BA. B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. Course for two units (100
students) under clause 7(16)
of the NCTE Regulations, 2014
from the academic session
2016-17.
The formal order of recognition
under clause 7(16) of the NCTE
Regulations, 2014 will be
issued only after the outcome
of SLP filed by the NCTE before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶91

At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of

¶92

Hitesh & Ors (Supra), as hereunder:-

¶93

“4. It is evident that a diploma or degree in a course of teacher education is deemed to be one, for the purposes of recruitment of a teacher under the Right to Education Act only if it is recognised by the NCTE. The NCTE was set up pursuant to the NCTE Act, 1993. The primacy of this institution or body as the regulator of teacher education has been recognised time and again by the Supreme court in several judgments including Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Maha Vidhalaya Vs. State of UP 2013 (2) SCC 617; Chairman Bharatia Education Society Vs. State of A.P. 2011 (4) SCC 527.

¶94

5. In these circumstances, the stipulation that course in B.Ed. for teacher education, recognised by the NCTE is essential cannot be turned arbitrary.

¶95

6. So far as the submission that the petitioners or other candidates who hold B.Ed. or other degree or diploma qualification issued by universities entitled to issue such degree is concerned, the Court sees no difficulty. The university – as OPJS University, Churu in the present case may be entitled to conduct courses in various subjects- Science, Engineering, Management etc. If any of these course is deemed a technical or professional one requiring the regulation by specialized body - mostly statutory such as Bar Council of India; AICTE; Medical

(10 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

Council of India, Dental Council of India etc., the fact that the concerned professional or other course (NCTE approved B.Ed. Course), is for some reason not recognised by the specialized special bodies would not in any way take away its basic character of a university degree. However, the objective of setting up a specialized regulatory body is to ensure that the concerned student or candidate possesses a qualification of the prescribed standard. In the case of teachers, unless the course is recognised by the NCTE the candidature of such students, who successfully complete the B.Ed. or other degree would be of little consequence and it cannot be used for the purposes of recruitment in this particular case, as teacher under the Right to Education Act.

¶100

7. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.”

¶101

This Court also observes that the National Council for Teacher Education is the specific body to grant the permission/recognition for conducting certain courses and also to maintain the high standards of education by setting the required parameters for such courses, including the course in question. This Court further observes that if a University has to conduct any special course, then it is necessary for the said University to get the requisite recognition from the specified Body, which in the present case is the NCTE, which was constituted especially for the said Courses.

¶102

This Court also observes that the petitioners’ candidature/selection was cancelled by the respondents because they do not hold the degree awarded by the recognized University, and that, the OPJS University was granted the necessary permission/recognition for conducting the course in qustion from

(11 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

[CW-3946/2019]

the academic session 2016-17, whereas, the petitioners have acquired the degree of the B.A. (Additional) English Subject prior to grant of such recognition.

¶107

This Court also observes that the petitioners are not the valid degree holders, and therefore, the rejection/cancellation of the petitioners candidature/selection by the respondents is justified in law, and thus, the impugned action of the respondents does not suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶108

Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and afore-quoted precedent law as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions.

¶109

Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶110

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶111

SKant/-

Yogesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Dev Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Payal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Lal Purohit Vs State and Ors.

Suman Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeeya Ram Vs Union of India

Amit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan