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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2374

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Reeta Ankiya – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10426/2021
Decided On : 03-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
D.S. Sodha and L.S. Udawat, Advocate., for the Appellant
Vinit Sanadhya and Hemant Choudhary, G.C., for the Respondents

The decision emphasized that the rejection of a candidate's candidature should be based on the specified qualifications and not on opinions that are not in line with the rules and advertisement.

Headnote:

Agriculture - Rejection of Candidature - Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 - [Rules of 1970, Second Class post graduate (Agriculture) in either Agronomy or Horticulture or Animal Husbandry with degree or diploma in Education recognized by govt.] - The court found that the petitioner fulfilled the educational requirements as per the Rules and advertisement, and the RPSC's decision to reject her candidature based on the opinion of the Director, Secondary Education, which was not in line with the specified qualifications, was not justified.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in Agriculture, but her candidature was rejected by the RPSC based on the opinion of the Director, Secondary Education that she was ineligible due to not having a B.Sc. in Agriculture, despite fulfilling the post graduation and education degree requirements specified in the Rules and advertisement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner met the educational qualifications as per the Rules and advertisement, and the RPSC's rejection of her candidature based on the opinion of the Director, Secondary Education was not justified.

Issues: Rejection of petitioner's candidature based on the opinion of the Director, Secondary Education and the RPSC's adherence to that opinion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the RPSC's decision to reject the petitioner's candidature based on an opinion that was not in line with the specified qualifications was not justified.

Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, the order rejecting her candidature was quashed and set aside, and the RPSC was directed to recommend her name for the post and the respondents were directed to accord her appointment, provided she was otherwise eligible.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of her candidature for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subject Agriculture.

2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that advertisement dated 13.4.2018 (Annex.2) was issued by the respondents, wherein inter alia the post of Lecturer in subject Agriculture was advertised. The educational qualification was indicated therein for the post in terms of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 ('Rules of 1970'), as B.Ed. and post graduation in relevant subject or any other equivalent qualification. The petitioner based on her qualification as B.Sc., B.Ed. and M.Sc. in Agronomy applied for the post.

3. The respondents after initial rejection and amendment by the respondent - RPSC in the last date of application, issued the final list of the candidates after document verification, wherein, the roll number of the petitioner did not appear though the marks obtained by the petitioner are higher than the cut-off in her category.

4. The reason was disclosed by the RPSC in its reply (Annex.R/1) that the petitioner has not done her B.Sc. in Agriculture and, therefore, she was held as ineligible for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in subject Agriculture.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on account of the fact that she has not done her B.Sc. in Agriculture is not justified, inasmuch as, the qualification indicated in the Rules and the advertisement only requires the candidate to have done his/her B.Ed. and post graduation in Agriculture. Admittedly, the petitioner has done her B.Ed. and holds post graduation in Agriculture and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's candidature by the respondents, is not justified.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent - RPSC made submissions that the issue was referred to the Director, Secondary Education with regard to the requisite qualification, wherein, the Director has opined that the petitioner was ineligible.

7. Submissions have been made that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected based on the opinion received from the Director, Secondary Education and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. The qualification for the post indicated in the Rules of 1970 inter alia reads as under:-

      "Second Class post graduate (Agriculture) in either Agronomy or Horticulture or Animal Husbandry with degree or diploma in Education recognized by govt."

      10. A perusal of the above would reveal that the requirement is post graduation in Agriculture with subjects Agronomy or Horticulture or Animal Husbandry and degree or diploma in Education recognized by the Government.

      11. Similar indication has been made in the advertisement, which reads as under:-

          ^^vfuok;Z 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% ¼izk/;kid&fp=dyk ds vfrfjDr leLr inksa ds fy;s½ %&

          ¼1½ ljdkj }kjk ekU; f'k{kk Lukrd ¼ch-,M-½ vkSj lqlaxr fo"k; esa LukrdksRrj fMxzh ;k mlds lerqY; dksbZ vU; vgZrk A

          12. When the issue was referred by the RPSC to the Director, Secondary Education, the opinion qua the petitioner's case dated 14.7.2021 (Annex.R/1/1) delivered, reads as under:-

              2- ;fn vH;FkhZ d`f"k esa Lukrd ugha gS rks vH;FkhZ }kjk vftZr vf/kLukrd dh ;ksX;rk dk ¼d`f"k ldk; dh fofHkUu 'kk[kk;s½ ikB~;Øe d`f"k vf/kLukrd ds led{k ugha gSA vr% og vik= gSA

              13. The said opinion was based on the opinion given by the experts, who noticed in the case of petitioner that she has done her B.Sc. in Chemistry, Botany and Geology and M.Sc. (Agriculture) Agronomy and indicated that as the petitioner is not graduate in Agriculture, the same was not relevant.

              14. As noticed hereinbefore, the indications made in the advertisement as well as Rules are very clear, wherein, the requirement indicated is post graduation in Agriculture with eithe

              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
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top