Arvind Parashar Son of Shri Udai Chand Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary

[2026:RJ-JP:284]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24999/2018

Arvind Parashar Son Of Shri Udai Chand, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 6/54, Salasar Bhawan, Panchsheel Makad Wali Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Rpsc, Ghooghra Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶9

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

07/01/2026

¶15

Instant writ petition is filed by petitioner with following

¶16

prayer:

¶17

“i. By issuing an appropriate writ. order or direction, the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure-12) may kindly be quashed and set aside and it may kindly be declared that the petitioner having qualification of the degree of bachelor of physical education three years integrated degree course is eligible to be appointed on the post of PTI Gr. III against the advertisement dated 14.12.2011 on the basis of order dated 15th July 2015 issued by N.C.T.E. and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of PTI Gr.III as per his merit, with all consequential benefits.

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:284]

[CW-24999/2018]

ii. By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems just and proper be passed in favour of humble petitioner.

¶22

iii. Cost of the writ petition be quantified in favour of petitioner.”

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner has filed an application no.1/2025 for disposal of the writ petition in light of judgment dated 27.11.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 152/2023 Bimala Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . and other connected matters and submitted that the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court is applicable upon the facts of the case so present writ petition be disposed of on the basis of ratio laid down by the Division Bench.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent(s) submits that the liberty be granted to them to examine the facts if there is any veracity of fact, then they may decide the representation of present petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions and also the material placed on record, a Division Bench of this Court in case of Bimala

¶25

Kumari (supra) while considering the issue relating to equivalence of educational qualification in matter relating to recruitment for the post of PTI Grade-III has observed as under:

¶26

The NCTE was impleaded as a party to the proceedings and specific reply was filed on behalf of the NCTE, wherein, it has been stated in para-7 as

¶27

under:-

¶28

“That the content of Para No.7 of the writ petition are admitted being matter of record anything contrary to the records are denied. Further, it is necessary to submit that the NCTE granted recognition/permission to

[2026:RJ-JP:284]

[CW-24999/2018]

(3 of 4)

Physical Education Programme Physical Education Bachelor (BPE) of three degree course and NCTE also clarified that it is also professional qualification and person who have opt this education is eligible to be appointed on the post of PTI Teacher and NCTE has also clarified that Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) is equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (BPEd)”

¶33

From perusal of the above, it is apparent that a person who has qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) Three Year Degree Course is eligible to be appointed on the post of p.T.I. Teacher. The NCTE has recognised the said qualification as same as to Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed). The short form of B.P.E is not reflected in the degree awarded to the appellant and it appears that the word 'B.P.E' is only to denote the course of three years and in no other way that it can be said to be different from BPEd which is only of one year. In fact, a course which is of lesser duration cannot be said to be lesser qualification than that of a course of one year.

¶34

In the circumstances, we hold that a person who possesses the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education on completing the three year degree course would be eligible to be appointed as PTI Grade-III and the non-consideration of such a candidate merely by using a short form of 'BPE' and distinguishing it from 'BPEd' is a misnomer and an attempt to deprive the more meritorious candidates from appointment.

¶35

We, therefore, direct that candidature of the appellant shall be considered on merits and if the appellant is found suitable as per the terms of the advertisement, she would be given benefit of consideration for appointment from the date persons lessor to her in the merit having been so appointed with all consequential benefits. However, the benefits will have to be treated as notional but her seniority and her pay fixation notionally shall be done from the date the other persons have been so granted. The actual

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:284]

[CW-24999/2018]

benefits shall be granted to the appellantspetitioners from the date when the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions.

¶40

Having considered the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench, if applicable upon the facts of the case. The respondent(s) are free to examine the veracity of facts as claimed by the petitioner but in case of deviation from the judgment or the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the respondent(s) are under an obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶41

Needless to say that if ratio is applicable, the benefits shall be extended in the same terms as directed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶42

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of

¶43

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶44

CHETNA BEHRANI /14

Arvind Parashar Son of Shri Udai Chand v. State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Parashar Son of Shri Udai Chand v. State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Bakoliya S/O Sh. Shimbhu Dayal Bakoliya Vs State of Rajasthan

Varis Khan S/O Shri Ameen Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan S/O Kailash Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Late Shri Nanag Ram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rameez Raja S/O Shri Abdul Waheed Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ibra @ Ibran Son of Mamrej Vs State of Rajasthan