Jahida Salma D/o Mohd. Shahid vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Jahida Salma D/o Mohd. Shahid – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1360, 2410, 2603 of 2022, 1457, 3304 of 2021, 226, 267, 277, 526, 532, 533, 536, 550, 573, 805, 818, 880, 921, 1221, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1493, 1498, 1501, 1513, 1539, 1545, 1680, 1683, 1790, 1821, 1841, 1894, 1898, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1927, 1952, 1958, 1959, 1962, 1964, 2016, 2017, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2032, 2047, 2049, 2121, 2126, 2139, 2141, 2175, 2185, 2291, 2317, 2620, 2659, 2671, 2695, 2698, 2838, 2891, 2894, 2954, 3293, 3626, 3717, 4142, 4346, 4517, 4617, 6225, 6776, 7317, 7479, 7601, 8150, 9382, 10108, 10379, 10827, 10975, 11864 of 2020, 10194, 10455, 12184, 12413 of 2019, 14257, 14308, 14314, 14370, 14485, 14509, 14525, 14544, 14649, 14724, 14785, 14790, 14812, 14862, 14939, 14940, 14946, 14951, 14974, 14982, 14996, 15004, 15066, 15084, 15088, 15091, 15099, 15108, 15109, 15110, 15111, 15112, 15114, 15153, 15178, 15189, 15198, 15200, 15208, 15215, 15229, 15241, 15413, 15416, 15417, 15419, 15420, 15426, 15428, 15429, 15431, 15432, 15437, 15449, 15923, 15941, 16006, 16031, 16184, 16582, 16696, 16850, 16969, 16977, 17084, 17097, 17118, 17120, 17188, 17332, 17347, 17350, 17367, 17428, 17431, 17557, 17590, 17734, 17979, 18038, 18177, 18290, 19683 of 2018, 2247 of 2016, 6571, 6580, 6609 of 2015
Decided On : 10-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Himanshu Jain, Ram Pratap Saini, Aamir Khan, Girraj Rajoria, Tanveer Ahamad, Anil K. Sharma, Brahma Prakash, Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj, Naveen Dhuwan, Ankit Sethi, Shailender Singh Balwada, Sanjay Buri, Sanjay Mehla, Sunita Mehla, Nagendra Sharma, Satish Kumar Balwada, Vikram Singh, Deshraj Kalwania, Anil Kumar Sharma, Mahendra Sharma, Baboo Lal Dhakar, R.A. Verma, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Komal Kumari Giri, Vivek Choudhary, Amit Punia, Surendra Singh, Sunil Kumar Swami, Narendra Kumar Gajua, Arvind Kumar Berwal, Vinod Jhajharia, Karan Pal Singh, S.P. Singh, Ved Pal Shastri, Subhash Sharma, Arvind Kumar Arora, Sandeep Garssa, Mukesh Kumar, Mukesh Poonia, Sajid Ali, Ajay Choudhary, D.S. Dhariwal, Abhishek B. Sharma, Arun Singh Shekhawat, Akshat Kulshrestha, Akshat Choudhary, Amit Jindal, Shiv Lal Meena, Ashish Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Rajveer Gurjar, Sukhdev Singh Solanki, Sanjay Khedar.
For the Respondents: V.B. Sharma, Prakhar Gupta, Vivek Tyagi, Naresh Kumar, Veerendra Singh, Neeraj Batra, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mahesh Chand Gupta.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Acquired qualification of ‘Adeeb’ - Secondary School examination by the Board of Secondary Education - Petitioners applied for appointment on post of Health Worker (Female) in pursuance of advertisement candidature was rejected on the premise that they have acquired qualification which has not been recognized as equivalent to Secondary School examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan prayer has been made to consider petitioners eligible for appointment and to accord them appointment as per their merit position with all consequential benefits - respondents Aligarh is not a valid equivalent qualification to secondary examination - Respondent granted equivalence to Adeeb qualification for appointment as Urdu Teachers only and for rest – Held, Undisputed that all petitioners have obtained ‘Adeeb’ qualification judgment applies with full vigour in instant writ petitions - nowhere provides that Xth standard must be passed from Board of Secondary Education or should be an equivalent qualification so declared by the Board of Secondary absence recognition/equivalence, perhaps, does not arise - Respondents could not satisfy this Court as to requirement of recognition/equivalence by Board of Secondary Education in absence of any such stipulation in the Rules of 1965 of course Board from which a candidate has passed Xth standard must be valid one, a situation obtaining in present case - Writ petitions are allowed

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. Since, all these writ petitions share similar facts and involve common question of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. To understand the factual matrix, the facts from SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15111/2018 are being referred.

3. The petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Health Worker (Female) in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.06.2018. Their candidature was rejected on the premise that they have acquired qualification of ‘Adeeb’ from the Jamia Urdu, Aligarh which has not been recognized as equivalent to Secondary School examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. A prayer has been made to consider the petitioners eligible for appointment and to accord them appointment as per their merit position with all consequential benefits.

4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have, in their reply, stated that since the Adeeb examination passed from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is not a valid equivalent qualification to secondary examination, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment.

5. The respondent No. 4 has, in its reply, stated that vide order dated 31.07.2002, it has granted equivalence to Adeeb qualification for appointment as Urdu Teachers only and for rest, it was conditional in absence of fulfillment whereof, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment.

6. Reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved herein is no more res integra and stands resolved by two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Altaf Bano vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 258/2004 decided on 06.04.2005 and State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum and Another, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 534/2005 decided on 12.01.2022 wherein, the qualification of Adeeb from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh has been held to be valid secondary examination for the purpose of appointment in the State of Rajasthan. They, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed, the respondents be directed to consider their candidature and to accord them appointment with all consequential benefits as per their merit position.

7. Per contra, Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that another Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Karan Singh vs. RPSC and Another, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 703/2014 vide its order dated 04.02.2015, held that since, the qualification of Adeeb-E-Mahir has not been declared equivalent qualification by the State Government to the qualification of secondary examination certificate, the appellant-petitioner was not entitled for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor, petitioners are also not eligible for appointment. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that equivalence given by the Board to the qualification of Adeeb was for a limited purpose, i.e. for appointment as Teacher (Urdu) and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment as Health Worker (Female) on the strength of Adeeb qualification.

9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

10. The controversy as to eligibility of the persons for appointment having obtained Adeeb qualification from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, stands resolved by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 12.01.2022 in case of the State of Rajasthan and Others (supra). The Division Bench, while approving the law laid down by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in case of Altaf Bano (supra), proceeded to held as under:

“In addition to respectfully accepting the view of the Division Bench in the case of Altaf Bano (supra) we are also independently of the view that the stand of the State Government that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the post in question is invalid. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document