Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Farhad Banu D/o Late Shri Abdul Qaiyoum – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 13986, 13929, 13860, 13861, 13969, 13994, 14057, 14293, 14302, 14304, 14571, 15006, 15232, 15271 of 2017
Decided On : 08-12-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Mr. Arjun Purohit, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr. Shreekant Verma, Mr. Shyam Vyas, Mr. Ramdev Potalia, Mr. R.S. Saluja, Mr. Govind Suthar, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Sukesh Bhati, Mr. T.C. Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG. with Mr. Dinesh Ojha
Candidates belonging to the TSP Area cannot be discriminated against in the selection process for government jobs, and they must be given equal opportunity to participate in the selection process as candidates belonging to the Non-TSP Area.
Headnote:
PRIMARY AND UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS RECRUITMENT-2016 - SELECTION PROCESS - UPDATION OF INFORMATION - FRESH APPLICATION FORM - RELAXATION - TSP AREA - NON-TSP AREA - DISCRIMINATION - EQUAL OPPORTUNITY - MERIT LIST - APPOINTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) Area, had qualified their REET/RTET Examinations and applied for the Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016. The selection process was initiated by issuing two advertisements, one for TSP Area and the other for Non-TSP Area, on the same date. However, the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 was challenged before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, resulting in a judgment on 27.04.2017, which struck down the conditions for selection pertaining to the merit in the REET Examination and directed the authorities to re-advertise the vacancies with a valid criteria of merit. The respondents issued a fresh advertisement/notification dated 11.09.2017, which required the candidates to update their information and fill a fresh application form. The last date for updation and fresh application was 11.10.2017 for both TSP and Non-TSP Areas. The petitioners, who had filled the online form vide the original advertisement dated 06.07.2016, did not update their information or fill a fresh application form, as they believed that their candidature would be considered as per the original advertisement. However, their names did not appear in the merit list dated 24.10.2017, and they were informed that they had not updated/filled the latest form, as per the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the selection process for TSP and Non-TSP Areas was initiated by the same advertisement on the same date and was being conducted simultaneously. However, the respondents had given liberal relaxation to the candidates belonging to the Non-TSP Area by allowing them to fill their fresh application form and updating their information until 15.12.2017, whereas the same benefit was denied to the candidates belonging to the TSP Area. The court held that this was a strange discrimination, as the TSP Area is more backward and needs more consideration by the respondents, as far as opportunity of participation in the selection process is concerned.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the petitioners the opportunity to update their information and fill a fresh application form, as per the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017, after the last date of 11.10.2017? 2. Whether the respondents were justified in giving liberal relaxation to the candidates belonging to the Non-TSP Area by allowing them to fill their fresh application form and updating their information until 15.12.2017, while denying the same benefit to the candidates belonging to the TSP Area?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents ought to have taken a lenient view towards the candidates belonging to the TSP Area, at least keeping them at par with the candidates belonging to the Non-TSP Area, as both the recruitment process were same for the same post and were being initiated by the notification of the same date and the only distinction was the geographical distinction, as TSP Area is admittedly more backward. 2. The court held that the respondents had discriminated against the candidates belonging to the TSP Area by denying them the same relaxation that was given to the candidates belonging to the Non-TSP Area, and that this discrimination was violative of the principles of equal opportunity and merit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and permitted the petitioners to fill up the forms/update their information in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement/notification dated 11.09.2017, until 20.12.2017. The court also directed the respondents to appropriately consider the petitioners in accordance with their merit and accord them appointment along with all other candidates who are there in the merit completing the selection process, namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016.
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Since the controversy involved in all the present writ petitions is common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers:
“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ, order or direction; the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to include the name of the petitioner as per her merit in the select list dated 24.10.2017 (Annex.12) and also directed to allot the district for verification of documents and counselling and further she may be given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in subject of English with all consequential benefits Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”
3. Brief facts of these cases, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioners were having the qualification of Graduation in the respective subjects and the petitioners belong to the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) Area. The petitioners have also qualified their REET/RTET Examinations.
4. The respondents commenced with their recruitment exercise, namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016 for the State of Rajasthan. For the said purpose, two advertisements were issued; one for TSP Area and the other for Non-TSP Area on 06.07.2016 However, the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 was challenged before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court, and resultantly, the judgment was rendered on 27.04.2017 in Sher Singh v. Dinesh Singh (D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1464/2016).
5. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sher Singh v. Dinesh Singh (supra) reads as under:—
“35. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, as noted above, is limited to as to how the merit is to be prepared. We find that as per the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have a particular minimum educational qualification and also to have REET eligibility, has decided to prepare merit only on the basis of the marks obtained in the REET which has resulted in causing ambiguity, confusion and administrative chaotic situation where a candidate may be able to secure appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject, even though he may not have studied that subject at all. Such cannot be the purpose of selection and we, therefore, hold that the advertisement condition of preparation of merit itself being vague and contrary to the purpose sought to be achieved, deserves to be set aside and we accordingly do so. It may also be noted that a subject Teacher of level-2 is also entitled for further promotion under the relevant educational service rules in that subject to the level of Teacher Gr. II in order to teach higher classes. If a candidate enters on the lower post, even without having the minimum qualifications in that subject, would amount to resulting in a chaotic situation.
36. The selection on the basis of the condition laid down in the advertisement, therefore, is held to be bad in law and the said criteria is declared as invalid with further directions to the authority to re-advertise the vacancies by preparing a valid criteria of merit for appointment of Teachers for level-2 i.e for subject Teachers for Classes from VI to VIII afresh keeping in mind the purpose of selection of Teachers in a particular subject.
37. All the candidates, who had already applied, need not have to apply again and would be treated as eligible for the purpose of selection which may be conducted now on the basis of criteria of merit which the authorities may lay down to achieve the purpose. The exercise may now be done within a period of four months. Other candidates, who may ha
