Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
S. Ravindra Bhat, Dinesh Mehta, JJ.
NILESH KUMAR PUROHIT AND OTHERS - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THR. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL AND PANCHAYATI RAJ AND OTHERS - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3948 of 2018 Connected With Civil Writ Petition No. 17211 of 2018
Decided On : 21-05-2019
For the Appellant : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat, Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Anand Khichi, Adv.
Headnote:
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 – Rule 266(3) – State of Rajasthan issued advertisement for recruitment and appointment of Teachers Gr. III for elementary education, in its Elementary Education Department, impugned amendments were brought into force effect of these amendments is that individuals possessing requisite qualifications and otherwise fulfilling eligibility stipulations prescribed by relevant Recruitment Rules, have now rendered ineligible, Both petitioners highlighted that in terms of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers candidates who possess minimum qualifications in terms of an earlier notification for recruitment to teach Class-VI to VIII – Graduation and passed or appearing in final of 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education with at least 50% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2-year Bachelor in Education, E. Senior secondary with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year – Held, Petitioners arguments with respect to impugned Rule, having been introduced at dictates of Court are in-substantial, State has submitted that Rules were formulated after deliberations by Cabinet Sub-Committee which had considered relevant circumstances, undoubtedly, decision in Sher Singh hinted need to frame appropriate regulations, that judgment did not contain any direction in that regard, it rather proceeded to set aside and quash process, State, as primary policy maker, is enjoined to ensure larger objective of RTE Act, is achieved and was therefore, within its right to frame policy, no doubt has adverse impact on petitioners, consideration cannot be sole one for this court to hold that it is arbitrary – Petition dismissed. (Para 14, 16)
Facts of the case: State of Rajasthan issued advertisement for recruitment and appointment of Teachers Gr. III for elementary education, in its Elementary Education Department, impugned amendments were brought into force effect of these amendments is that individuals possessing requisite qualifications and otherwise fulfilling eligibility stipulations prescribed by relevant Recruitment Rules, have now rendered ineligible, Both petitioners highlighted that in terms of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers candidates who possess minimum qualifications in terms of an earlier notification for recruitment to teach Class-VI to VIII – Graduation and passed or appearing in final of 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education with at least 50% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2-year Bachelor in Education, E. Senior secondary with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year.
Findings of the court: Petitioners arguments with respect to impugned Rule, having been introduced at dictates of Court are in-substantial, State has submitted that Rules were formulated after deliberations by Cabinet Sub-Committee which had considered relevant circumstances, undoubtedly, decision in Sher Singh hinted need to frame appropriate regulations, that judgment did not contain any direction in that regard, it rather proceeded to set aside and quash process, State, as primary policy maker, is enjoined to ensure larger objective of RTE Act, is achieved and was therefore, within its right to frame policy, no doubt has adverse impact on petitioners, consideration cannot be sole one for this court to hold that it is arbitrary.
Result: Petition dismissed.
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
This common judgment will dispose of two writ petitions by which amendments to Rule 266(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, which were amended with effect from 29.8.2017, are challenged.
2. The facts are limited. The State of Rajasthan issued an advertisement for recruitment and appointment of Teachers Gr. III (Level-II) for elementary education, in its Elementary Education Department. The impugned amendments were brought into force on 29.8.2017. The effect of these amendments is that individuals possessing requisite qualifications and otherwise fulfilling eligibility stipulations prescribed by the relevant Recruitment Rules, have been now rendered ineligible. Both petitioners highlighted that in terms of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2015, the candidates who possess the minimum qualifications in terms of an earlier notification dated 29.7.2011 for recruitment to teach Class-VI to VIII, were to be amongst the following categories:-
"A. Graduation and passed or appearing in final of 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR
B. Graduation with at least 50% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.).
OR
C. Graduation with at least 45% marks and I year B.Ed. Passed or appearing in final year of 2 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation issued from time to time in the regard.
OR
D. Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.E.Ed).
OR
E. Senior secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and passed or appearing in final year of 4-year B.A/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed/ B.Sc.Ed.
OR
F. Graduation with at least 50 % marks and passed or appearing in I-year B.Ed. (Special Education)."
3. After the examination (REET 2015) the Director of Primary Education issued a notification (DR-2016). In terms of this notification candidates had to obtain 60% marks as minimum passing marks in REET/RTET (Teacher Eligibility Test). Some of the petitioners contend that they had the requisite qualifications of BA and B.Ed. and were preparing hard for the Teacher Gr.III Level-II. Some of the petitioners belong to TSP category. The petitioners referred to the National Council for Teachers Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE Regulations of 2005) as governing the B.Ed course, which in turn required those having less than 50% marks in BA/MA were not entitled to be admitted to the B.Ed. Course. It is stated that the petitioners had possessed the necessary marks i.e. more than 50%.
4. The petitioners then referred to a previous litigation where the cut off list issued for Science/Maths for different categories was set aside by judgment dated 27.4.2017 in Sher Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1464/2016). Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued on 11.9.2017. In between on 29.8.2017 the impugned amendments were brought into force. The relevant extracts of the amendments are as follows:-
"2. Amendment of rule 266. The existing clause (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996, hereinafter referred to as the said Rules, shall be substituted by the following namely:-
(3) Primary and upper primary School teacher (100 percent by direct recruitment)
A General Education Level (i) Class I to V
Level (ii) Class VI to VIII Qualification as laid down by the National council For Teacher Education under the provisions of Sub section (1) of section 23 of the right to Children to free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Central act No.35 of 2009) from time to time
AND
(i) For the teacher of Social Science, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with at least one subject as an optional subject from among History, Geog
