Dismissed

Pooja Bansal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2023CW/759/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the exclusion of candidates pursuing BSTC/B.Ed. from applying for teacher recruitment. Ruling that an amendment to the relevant state rules had obliterated the eligibility for final-year students, the court held that the restructuring was legal and dismissed the petitions, deporting interim orders previously passed in similar

What did the court decide?

The applicants are not entitled to apply for the post as they are not eligible under the amended Rules.

Pooja Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 295/2023

¶3

Rudrakshi Sankhala D/o Shri Yogesh Sankhala, Aged About 20 Years, Caste Mali, R/o A 140, Vinayak Vihar, Jhanwar Road, P.o. Nandanwan, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Chairman, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

Coordinator, Pre D.ei.ed. Exam., 2020 And Registrar, Departmental Exams. (Educations), Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 409/2023

¶11

Vinod S/o Shri Ram Sukh Ram, Aged About 22 Years, V.p.o. Anandpur Kalu, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶12

Pradeep Choudhary S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Choudhary, Aged About 20 Years, Village And Post Jethana, District Ajmer.

¶13

Nitu Choudhary D/o Shri Ram Swaroop Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, Village And Post Jethana, District Ajmer.

¶14

Kalu Ram S/o Shri Khinya Ram, Aged About 27 Years, V.p.o. Jaspali, P.o. Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

¶15

Vinita D/o Shri Ram Karan Ji, Aged About 22 Years, Jiyaniyon Ki Dhani, Paladi Siddha, District Jodhpur.

¶16

Kana Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 22 Years, V.p.o. Chandsama, P.o. Dechu, District Jodhpur.

¶17

Amit Swami S/o Shri Kishore Das, Aged About 20 Years, Village And Post Jaitpur, District Bikaner.

¶18

Rameshwar Lal Jyani S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Ward No. 06, Bapeu, District Bikaner.

¶19

Shyam Sunder Rolya S/o Shri Trilok Chand, Aged About 24 Years, V.p.o., Bhawani Kheda, District Ajmer.

¶20

Ankit Paroda S/o Shri Balveer Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Near Post Office Saradhana, District Ajmer.

¶21

Sukhdev S/o Shri Raju Ram, Aged About 21 Years, V.p.o. Anandpur Kalu, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶22

Sanju Devra S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Devro Ki Dhani, Siyara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur.

¶23

Narendra S/o Shri Raju Ram, Aged About 19 Years, Village Hariyadhana, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners

(2 of 8)

[CW-295/2023]

Versus

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

¶29

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 705/2023

¶32

Pradeep Esharwal S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Jajiwal, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶33

Miss. Khushbu D/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶34

Aaina Manda S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶35

Sunita D/o Shri Ganesh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Jasrasir, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶36

Ramavatar S/o Shri Sita Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/ o Ward No. 13, Padal Bas, Village Jasrasir, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶37

Shubham Gahlot S/o Shir Rajendra Gahlot, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Jasrasir, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶38

Vinod Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dodwari, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶39

Arjun S/o Shri Bhakara Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Dara Ka Bas, Village Artiya District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶40

Gajendra Sharma S/o Shri Giriraj Prasad Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Swai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

¶41

Suman D/o Shri Bhaga Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bhatinda, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶42

----Petitioners

¶43

Versus

¶44

1. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶45

The Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶46

The National Board Of Examination In Rehabilitation, Department Of Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities (Divyangjan) Govt. Of India, Through Its Examination Controller, B-22, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110016.

----Respondents

(3 of 8)

[CW-295/2023]

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2023

¶51

Pooja Bansal D/o Shri Mukeshg Chand Bansal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Rajiv Colony, Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶52

Lavkush Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Mundhera, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶53

Naval Kishore S/o Shri Gyan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 17, Nagla Ram Ratan, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶54

Raju Singh S/o Shri Kuvar Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 220, Pona Thok, Paramadara, Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶55

Rohitash Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Palka, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶56

----Petitioners

¶57

Versus

¶58

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶59

Director, Elementary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶60

Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶61

----Respondents

¶62

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2023

¶63

Niranjan Singh Dewal S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶64

----Petitioner

¶65

Versus

¶66

The Secretary Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶67

The Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Bikaner.

¶68

----Respondents

¶69

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 946/2023

¶70

Gyan Singh Gurjar S/o Shrinarayan Gurjar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Bhojpura, Kelai, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶71

Subhash Dan S/o Shri Leel Dan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Anandgarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶72

----Petitioners

¶73

Versus

¶74

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education

¶75

(4 of 8)

¶76

[CW-295/2023]

¶77

Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶78

1. Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶79

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶80

----Respondents

¶81

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
	Mr. Govind Lal
	Mr. OP Sangwa
	Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
	Mr. SK Shreemali
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vinit Sanadhaya

¶82

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶83

Order

¶84

18/01/2023

¶85

All these petitioners have approached the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction with the grievance that the respondent- Rajasthan Staff Selection Board is illegally restraining the petitioners from submitting their online application forms to contest for the recruitment of Teacher (General)/Special Education Level-I notified vide recruitment notification No.12/2022 dated 16.12.2022.

¶86

All the petitioners claim to be pursuing BSTC/ B.Ed. course, which is the requisite educational qualification in terms of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafeter referred to as the Rules of 1996).

¶87

Learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court’s attention towards Rules 266 of the Rules of 1996 and submitted that the person pursuing BSTC/B.Ed. Examinations is eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teacher subject to

¶88

(5 of 8)

¶89

[CW-295/2023]

¶90

the condition that he will have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification before the declaration of results of the written examinations to be held by the Board.

¶91

It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioners are eligible for appointment and therefore, the action of the respondentSelection Board who has not provided facility to candidates pursuing BSTC/ B.Ed. to fill up the application form is illegal. 5. Reliance was placed upon the interim order dated 17.01.2023, passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.908/2023.

¶92

While submitting that the last date for submitting online application form is 19.01.2023, it was prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners that similar interim order be passed in petitioners’ favour and the Selection Board be directed to accept their online/offline application form.

¶93

Learned counsel for the petitioners further emphasised that the petitioners are pursuing their BSTC/ B.Ed. course and it was only because of unprecedented situation arising out of pandemic Covid-19 that examinations could not be conducted. They submitted that the petitioners who were not at fault cannot be deprived of their right to take part in the recruitment process. It was stated that in some of the cases, even examinations of BSTC/ B.Ed. final year have been held and result will soon be declared. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioners are allowed to participate in the recruitment process, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

¶94

(6 of 8)

¶95

[CW-295/2023]

¶96

Mr. Vinit Sanadhaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Selection Board, on the other hand, submitted that the interim order passed by Jaipur Bench seems to have been passed on the basis of the unamended Rules of 1996.

¶97

He submitted that by way of notification No.GSR 330 dated 15.09.2021, the entire sub-rule (3) of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 has been substituted and accordingly the earlier provision providing that a final year student of BSTC/B.Ed. shall be eligible to contest for the post advertised has ceased to exist.

¶98

Learned counsel argued that on the date of issuing the advertisement dated 16.12.2022, the relevant provision stood amended and the terms of advertisement particularly Clause No.6.6 which is in line with the prevailing Rule 266 cannot be faulted with.

¶99

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶100

Petitioners’ case hinges upon the following proviso to Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996:-

¶101

“Provided further that the person who has appeared in the B.Ed./ B.S.T.C. examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teacher but he shall have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the [Distt. Establishment Committee] before the declaration of result of the said examination.”

¶102

By way of the notification No.GSR 330 dated 15.09.2021, entire sub-rule (3) of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 has been substituted with immediate effect and the amended Rule now provides that to be eligible for appointment as primary or upper primary teacher, a candidate graduating in BSTC/B.Ed. must also

¶103

(7 of 8)

¶104

[CW-295/2023]

¶105

have passed the qualifying examination with the corresponding subject. Further, the first proviso of Rule 266 which permitted the final year students or the candidates who are pursuing BSTC/B.Ed. Course has been obliterated.

¶106

The prevailing statutory position is without any such stipulation or relaxation to the students pursuing BSTC/ B.Ed. courses. Hence, a candidate who has passed BSTC/ B.Ed. examinations alone is eligible to apply for the post. 15. Argument of Mr. Khet Singh that sub-rule (3) of Rule 266 has been substituted only to the extent of educational qualification and both the provisos still exist is absolutely misconceived. As a matter of fact sub-rule (3) has been substituted in its entirety and hence, it cannot be said that the 2^nd proviso reproduced in para No.11 above will continue to remain in the statute book.

¶107

Since, Rules of 1996 do not provide any leeway to students pursuing their BSTC/B.ED. Course, this Court cannot grant the petitioners a right to apply for the post in question dehors the statutory position.

¶108

The fact that proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 266 before amendment permitted a candidate pursuing his BSTC/B.Ed. to apply for the said post cannot be a reason to give the petitioners a right to fill the application form. 18. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in the decision of the respondents who have not provided any window for the candidates like petitioners who have not yet completed their eligibility qualification BSTC/ B.Ed.

¶109