SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Raj) 842

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.P.Singh, J.
Sobha Sharma, Smt. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5007/1993 .
Decided On : 22-07-1994

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj Pareek, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B.L. Gupta, Advocate

The executive authority does not have the jurisdiction to modify or amend the minimum educational requirements prescribed in the Rules.

Headnote:

PANCHAYAT SAMITIS AND ZILA PARISHAD RULES - RULE 11 - AMENDMENT BY DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS - NOT PERMISSIBLE - MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS TEACHER GRADE-III (PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER) - RULE 11 OF THE RULES - PRESCRIBES ONLY SECONDARY EXAMINATION OR EQUIVALENT EXAMINATION RECOGNISED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN AND TRAINING QUALIFICATION - CIRCULAR DATED 26.2.1991 ADDING ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS AS ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION - WITHOUT JURISDICTION - AMENDMENT OF RULE BY EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS - NOT PERMISSIBLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Primary School Teacher) under the 'Operation Black Board Scheme'. She fulfilled all the minimum requisite qualifications, but her application was rejected because she did not have Mathematics as a subject in her secondary examination as prescribed by a circular dated 26.2.1991.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the circular dated 26.2.1991 adding Elementary Mathematics as an essential qualification for appointment as Teacher Grade-III (Primary School Teacher) was without jurisdiction and illegal. The court further held that the executive authority does not derive jurisdiction from any authority to modify or amend the minimum educational requirements prescribed in the Rules.

Issues: Whether the academic, technical qualification and experience as provided in Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules, 1959 can be amended by departmental instructions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules are exhaustive and the executive authority does not have the jurisdiction to modify or amend the minimum educational requirements prescribed in the Rules. Therefore, the circular dated 26.2.1991 was illegal and the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III, within a period of three months from the date of the filing of certified copy of this order before the opposite party No. 3.

JUDGMENT

1. : The point involved in this case is whether the academic, technical qualification and experience as provided in Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') can be amended by depart- mental instructions. The answer obviously would be 'no'.

2. In the instant case, the petitioner passed her secondary school certificate examination from Gujarat Secondary School Certification Examination Board, Baroda. Elementary Mathematics was not a compulsory subject. It was the option of the candidate to opt the same or not. In place of Elementary Mathematics the petitioner opted Sanskrit. She obtained Bachelor's degree from Gujarat University. Therefore, she passed her M.A. from University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and B.Ed. from Kota Open University, Kota.

3. Zila Parishad, Bharatpur, through its Chief Executive Officer and Secretary (opposite party No. 3) invited applications for appointment of Women Teachers Grade-III (Primary School Teacher) under the 'Operation Black Board Scheme'. The petitioner fulfilled all the minimum requisite qualifications. She submitted her application which was received in the office of the opposite party No. 3 on 21.9.1991. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that the candidate should have passed secondary or Matric with English, Mathematics and General Science. The age limit was 38 years. The petitioner being of 34 years of age at that time and having the requisite qualifications applied for the same.

4. Result of the selection was declared but the petitioner's name did not appear therein. She has been denied appointment because of not having Mathematics as a subject in her secondary examination as prescribed by the circular dated 26.2.1991.

5. The recruitment and other conditions of service of Teachers Gr. III (Primary School Teacher) are regulated under the provisions of the Rule. In the Schedule attached to the Rules, the post of Primary School Teacher has been included at Sl. No. 2 which runs as follows:

S.N. Category of Post Post from which appointment can be made by promotion Minimum experience and qualification required for promotion Remarks.
2. Primary School Teachers (i)Holders of untrained matric grade Must be matric and trained The minimum qualification required for direct requirment in appointment can respect of women candiates shall be middle standard or concerned course of training conducted by insititutions recognised by the State Govt. or the Central Govt.
(ii) Holders of trained middle Grade Must have passed Matric
Note: The minimum qualification for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates shall be Matric and STC trained or any other qualification declared equivalent to Matric trained by the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan.Provided that in case of non-availability of trained women candidates in Tribal District of Durgarpur and Banswara and Desert District of Barmer and Jaisalmer, the minimum qualification may be untrained Matric or equivalent"Rule 11 of the Rules is quoted below:-

"11. Academic qualifications and qualifying service: - A recruit to the various categories of service must possess the minimum educational qualification and experience detailed in schedule to these rules."

6. This rule nowhere prescribes Elementary Mathematics as essential qualification for being appointed as Teacher Grade-III (Primary School Teacher).

7. The circular dated 26.2.1991 adding something more to the Rules, is without jurisdiction. In substance, the Rule stand amended by means of which circular which is not permissible under law.

8. State Counsel has contend that the petitioner has been denied appointment only on the ground that she did not have elementary Mathematics as a subject in Secondary examination and therefore, in terms of the advertisement she was not qualified to be considered. But he has not been able to explain as to how the rule could be amended by executive instructions.

9. A similar









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top