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

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Ram Kishan Meena S/o Shri Chitar Lal Meena – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4676, 4913, 5283 of 2010
Decided On : 13-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: H.R. Kumawat, Pragyaseth
For the Respondents: Ashish Kumar, Manju Joshi, Shriram Jakar

IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility for public employment requires candidates to possess qualifications before the examination date, as interpreted literally.

Headnote:

(A) Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999 - Eligibility criteria for public employment - The petitioners challenged the order dated 26.03.2010, which ousted their candidature for teacher recruitment based on qualification timing. The court emphasized that candidates must possess qualifications before the written examination date, interpreting 'before' literally. The court found that the petitioners did not meet this requirement as their qualifications were obtained on the examination date itself. (Paras 4, 14.5, 15)

(B) Interpretation of eligibility criteria - The court ruled that the cut-off date for eligibility must be strictly adhered to as per the recruitment advertisement, reinforcing the principle that qualifications must be acquired prior to the examination date. (Paras 14.6, 15)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners sought to challenge their disqualification for a teaching position based on the timing of their qualifications relative to the examination date.

Findings of Court:

The court upheld the disqualification, stating that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria as their qualifications were not obtained before the examination date.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners met the eligibility criteria based on the timing of their qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the literal interpretation of 'before' must be applied, confirming that qualifications must be obtained prior to the examination date.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Considering the identical controversy involved, the instant matters are clubbed together, henceforth are adjudicated by way of this common order. The instant order be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis to the instant petitions.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4676/2010 is taken as the lead file, and the said petition is filed with the following prayers:

    “By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 26.03.2010 issued by the respondent no. 2 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quash and set aside.

    The respondents be directed to consider the qualification of the petitioner for appointment of teacher grade-III (General) Primary-22.

    The respondents be directed to appoint to petitioner on the post of teacher grade-III (General) Primary-22 as per merit acquired by the petitioner with all the consequential benefits.

    Any other order or relief which the Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for the post of Sanskrit Teacher/General Teacher Grade-III, 2008. Resultantly, a written examination was conducted on 22.07.2009. The respondents on an earlier occasion made it clear that no interview will be conducted and the written examination shall be the sole selection criteria.

4. It is further submitted in the present matter that petitioner had acquired his qualification dated 21.07.2009 prior to appearing in written examination and he was successful in the written examination and stood at serial no. 87 in the merit list. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 26.03.2010 whereby, the candidature of the petitioner was ousted, stating that the petitioner had failed to acquire the qualification dated 21.07.2009 i.e. before the written examination date i.e. on 22.07.2009.

5. Further, it is averred that in the instant petitions impugned letter dated 26.03.2010 is also assailed. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioners have fairly conceded the fact that the said qualification was acquired after taking the said written examination. It is also submitted that interim order dated 09.04.2010 was awarded in favour of the petitioner, whereby one seat was kept reserved qua him, subject to outcome of the present petition.

6. In support of contentions made insofar reliance is placed upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 34/2015 titled as Manju Chhaba vs. State of Rajasthan which was even upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and it is submitted that a liberal interpretation should be taken.

7. Additionally, it is submitted that reliance should be placed upon the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999 and the amendments thereto, wherein the relevant proviso of the said Rules is reproduced as below:

    “Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency:

    (i) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview.

    (ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview.

    (iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be.”

8. Relying upon the above submissions, a prayer is made to make the order dated 09.04.2010 absolute.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that reliance should be placed upon recruitment advertisement dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure-5) issued by RPSC wherein e

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