Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.
Shweta Khaiwal and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12836, 14129 of 2014 & 478, 552, 2975, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980, 2981 of 2015
Decided On : 19-05-2016
For the Appellant : Laxmi Kant Sharma.
For the Respondents: S.N. Kumawat and Sanjay Kumar Sharma.
Eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the participating candidates/petitioners.
Headnote:
WRIT - Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 - Advertisement dated 2.8.2013 - Eligibility criteria - B.Ed. Degree - Petitioners acquired B.Ed. Degree after the last date of examination - Not entitled to relief.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners participated in the recruitment process for the post of Teacher Gr. II in different subjects. The Competitive Examinations 2013, were conducted under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (Rules of 1971) w.e.f. 21st to 25th February, 2014. Petitioners acquired the degree of B.Ed. in different subjects after 21/25th February, 2014 i.e. the last date while the respondent- Commission concluded the Competitive Examination-2013, in response to advertisement dated 2.8.2013.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners did not acquire the required educational qualification of B.Ed. on or before 21 and/or 25th February, 2014; the last dates, the respondent- Commission commenced and concluded the Competitive Examinations-2013, for recruitment to posts of Teacher Gr. II involved herein. Mere fact of permitting the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process in view of 'admit card' issued, would not vest the petitioners with any legal right unless they were eligible, in accordance with relevant recruitment rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, despite not acquiring the requisite educational qualification of B.Ed. before the last date of examination?
Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the participating candidates/petitioners. In the instant case at hand, the petitioners did not acquire the requisite educational qualification on the date prior to the Examinations 2013, conducted by the respondent-Commission, in accordance with the stipulation made in the advertisement; the petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to any relief.
Final Decision: Writ applications are devoid of any substance and lack in merit, and therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.
1. This batch of writ applications projects a controversy, identical on law and facts and therefore, the matters have been taken up together for final adjudication by this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a request to permit the petitioners to address a representation in the backdrop of the adjudication by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in Civil Writ Petition No. 34/2015 (Smt. Manju Chhaba vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another), decided on 10th September 2015, affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal (W) No. 127/2016 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Smt. Manju Chhaba & Others), decided on 4th April 2016. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC (for short, respondent-Commission), strongly resisted the request and vehemently asserted that the case of Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra), has been decided without taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others, (2013) 11 SCC 58.
3. Briefly, the essential skeletal materials facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant batch of writ applications are that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process in response to an advertisement dated 2.8.2013, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. II in different subjects. The Competitive Examinations 2013, were conducted under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short, Rules of 1971) w.e.f. 21st to 25th February, 2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ applications vehemently argued that the advertisement itself made a contemplation to the effect that the candidates, pursuing studies in the final year, were eligible to participate in the recruitment process; however, they were required to furnish proof of required essential educational qualifications, acquired prior to the date of examinations. The advertisement further clarified that the relaxation was admissible to the candidates, who had sought admission to participate in the final year examination of the required essential educational qualifications, prior to the last date of filing of the application.
5. According to learned counsel, no doubt that the petitioners acquired the degree of B.Ed. in different subjects after 21/25th February, 2014 i.e. the last date while the respondent- Commission concluded the Competitive Examination-2013, in response to advertisement dated 2.8.2013.
6. Learned counsel contended that the adjudication by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manju Chhaba (supra) is with reference to the same recruitment process, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief. Furthermore, the opinion of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench as would be evident from the order dated 4.4.2016, declining the intra-court appeal against the opinion of the learned Single Judge in the case of Manju Chhaba (supra). Therefore, the writ applications deserve to be allowed.
7. In response to notice of the writ application, the State-respondents and respondent-Commission have filed their counter-affidavits. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were not in possession of the required essential educational qualification of B.Ed. Examination, on the date prior to the Examinations 2013, conducted by respondent-Commission, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 2.8.2013.
8. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Commission, asserted that the opinion of the learned Single Judge in the case of Manju Chhaba (supra), is per incuriam for the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (
