IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualifications possessed at the time of appointment determine the nature of the appointment, and benefits cannot be claimed based on parity with others if the initial appointment was in accordance with the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III (General) vide order dated 17.02.1981 and was confirmed vide order dated 23.06.1984. Counsel further submits that the respondents issued a circular dated 06.01.2000 withdrawing all orders of deleting the names of the teachers from the list of Craft Teachers and given place in the list of Teachers (General). Counsel also submits that the respondents have allowed promotion to the persons who were junior to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II. Counsel also submits that the action of the respondents is not allowing the promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher Grade-III in the year 1999, is illegal and arbitrary. Counsel further submits that similarly situated persons namely; Mahavir Prasad and Sona Ram Yadav have been allowed promotion on the post of Teacher Grade-III being Craft Teachers but the same benefits have not been extended to the petitioner.

2. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher vide order dated 17.02.1981 as he was holding the requisite qualification for appointment as Craft Teacher. Counsel further submits that on the date of initial appointment, the petitioner was not holding the qualification to be appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General). Counsel further submits that one Mahavir Prasad was appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General) vide order dated 02.11.1984 issued by the Office of Panchayat Samiti, Kotputli, District Jaipur.

3. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was holding the Trade Certificate and he was entitled to be appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General). Counsel further submits that the circular/order dated 30.10.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan speaks that circular dated 06.08.1984 provides that certificates of trade examinations and certificates of handicraft issued by the Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur will be treated equivalent to the basic training.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents.

5. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III under the Head of Craft Teacher vide order dated 17.02.1981 and was confirmed vide order dated 23.06.1984. The name of the petitioner was deleted from the list of Craft Teachers vide order dated 25.02.1999 and was included in the list of Teacher Grade-III. The respondents issued a circular dated 06.01.2000, where it was observed that all those persons who were appointed as Craft Teachers were not to be included as Teacher Grade-III (General), and if any orders have been passed by any authorities, the same are treated to be cancelled.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the circular/order dated 06.01.2000, has filed this petition and has prayed that he may be treated as Teacher Grade-III (General) and he be allowed all the consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II.

7. The petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III (Craft) and was placed at Serial No. 41 in the appointment order under the head of matric, and handicraft training. The requisite qualification for appointment as Teacher Grade-III (General) at the relevant time was Matriculation with certificate of training.

8. On the date of appointment the petitioner was holding the qualification of Higher Secondary and a certificate of trade was issued by the Vidya Bhawan Kala Sansthan, Udaipur. The qualification which the petitioner was possessing at the time of appointment is not the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (General). The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General) is wholly misconceived because he cannot be appointed as Teacher Grade-III (Gen