The main legal point established in the judgment is that eligibility requirements as per the advertisement and the cut-off marks are crucial in determining a candidate's eligibility for appointment.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr. III in Special Education Level-II in subject Social Studies.

2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 (Annex. 1), the petitioner applied for the post of Special Teacher Gr. III, Social Science (for Non-TSP area). The respondents inter alia called the petitioner for document verification vide Annex. 6 as the petitioner has obtained 62.480% marks. In the cut-off issued by the respondents for those under the waiting list and having been selected in petitioner's category is 56.490%. However, the petitioner has not been accorded appointment and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard, cannot be sustained.

3. A response to the writ petition has been filed inter alia indicating that as the petitioner had not obtained the requisite marks in graduation in terms of the advertisement as the minimum percentage required was 50% in General category and petitioner had obtained obtained 49.611% marks in graduation, he was not eligible.

4. Submissions have been made that though the petitioner belongs to OBC category, wherein, the relaxation of 5% is available, however, as the post, which are vacant and have been filled up from the wait listed candidates, only pertains to General category and SC category, the petitioner has to fulfill the requirements of a general category candidate and, therefore, on account of ineligibility of the petitioner, he has not been accorded appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the eligibility requirements in the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 is based on the judgment of this Court dated 20.5.2011, which was based on the then NCTE notification, however, the requirements stands modified by amendment dated 13.11.2019, wherein, the requirement of minimum percentage of marks at graduation level has been done away with and, therefore, the petitioner being eligible cannot be denied appointment.

6. Further submissions have been made that Condition No. 9.3(iii) is without any basis and, therefore, on that count, the Condition itself being bad in law, the petitioner is entitled for appointment.

7. Learned AAG made submissions that, insofar as, the applicability of the notification dated 13.11.2019, whereby, the conditions have been amended by NCTE for eligibility, is concerned, the same has been held inapplicable to the present recruitment initiated prior to issuance of the said notification in the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1205/2019, decided on 10.3.2021 followed in Manilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 997/2019, decided on 27.4.2022, whereby, while the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor (supra) pertained to recruitment 2016, the case of Manilal (supra) pertain to the present recruitment and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

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

9. A perusal of the cut-off dated 21.2.2022 indicates that in petitioner's category, the cut-off of the wait listed candidates has been indicated in General category and SC category, as such the petitioner has to fulfill the requirements of a General category candidate and as admittedly the petitioner has obtained marks less than the requisite 50% marks for the said category as the petitioner had obtained admission after 31.8.2009 in B.Ed., the petitioner on its face is ineligible.

10. So far as the plea raised regarding the amendment introduced by the NCTE on 13.11.2019 is concerned, the said issue stands squarely covered by judgment in the case of Manilal (supra), wherein, the Division Bench after taking into consideration the notification dated 13.11.2019, came to the f