Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Sumitra & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2023,S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16206 of 2022 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16668, 18051, 18493 of 2022
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Subject
Administrative Law - Employment Law
Headnote
(B) Legal Precedent - The court emphasized that previous judgments declaring equivalence are not applicable, distinguishing them based on the specific legal context. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged their non-appointment based on qualifications, having passed Senior Secondary (Vocational). Respondents cited the Supreme Court ruling clarifying the ineligibility of vocational qualifications for the posts.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench ruling that vocational studies do not equate to academic ones.
Issues: The central question was whether Senior Secondary (Vocational) should be treated as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the distinction between vocational and academic qualifications, aligning with the Supreme Court’s verdict which set precedence for eligibility criteria in state recruitment.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.R. Saharan. Mr. J.S. Bhaleria. Mr. Pawan Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unjust appointment rejection of petitioners. (Para 1) |
| 2. disputed equivalence of qualifications. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. supreme court validates prior judgments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petitions affirmed. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
Arun Bhansali, J.
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not according appointment to the petitioners on account of the fact that they have passed their Senior Secondary (Vocational) and as such they were ineligible in terms of LDC Recruitment-2013.
2. Submissions have been made that the respondents have all along treated the Senior Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and as such rejection of petitioners' candidature on the said count, is not justified.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that in view of law, as it existed at the relevant time, the respondents had treated the Senior Secondary (Vocational) as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), however, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : Civil Appeal Nos.9505-9506 of 2019 decided on 18.12.2019, it is now apparent that both are not equivalent and that it is only in case where the candidate, who has passed his/her Senior Secondary (Vocational) and has undergone Bridge course, alongwith passing of Bridge Course, his/her qualification may be treated as equal to Senior Secondary (Academic) and, therefore, rejection of petitioners' candidate cannot be faulted.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra), inter-alia, after hearing the parties came to the following conclusion :
"5. The review petitions were filed both by the State of Rajasthan and the respondent. The review petition filed by the State has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 31 July 2018. The High Court on a careful evaluation has come to the conclusion that the Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and, in coming to the conclusion, has relied on the decisions of the High Court in Rajpal Singh & Ors. v. Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Vibhag, Jaipur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.857 of 1997) and State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Jhajharia & Anr. (1999 (2) RLW (Raj.) 1305).
6. We find no reason to differ with the view which has been taken by the High Court. The decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra), which was relied on by the learned Single Judge in the original order dated 23 July 2013, would not be of any assistance to the case of the respondent for the simple reason that in paragraph 9 of the judgment, this Court held that:
"It is made clear that we have passed this order in the peculiar circumstances arising in these appeals and the same shall not be treated as a precedent."
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that the Special Appeal before the High Court was filed by the State only against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7 September 2016 which was by way of a clarification of the earlier order dated 23 July 2013. Hence, it was urged that the review which was sought of the Special Appeal dated 19 January 2018 will not, in consequence, disturb the original judgment of the learned Single Judge.
8. This submission has been dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court. Since the Division Bench of the High Court had set the controversy at rest in the other two decisions, which have been noted earlier, the judgment dated 19 January 2018 had to be set to rest by bringing the position in alignment with the view which has already been taken by the High Court.
9. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the present appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed."
6. The Hon'ble
