2005 Supreme(Raj) 454
Rajasthan High Court
Honble N.N. MATHUR, J. Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG J.
Emarata Ram Pooniya - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 782 of 2004
Decided On : February 15, 2005
M. Mridul, Senior Advocate, with Suchita Bachhawat, M.R. Singhvi, M.S. Singhvi, Pushpendar Singh & Kuldeep Mathur, for Appellants N.M. Lodha, Additional Advocate General & N.R. Choudhary, for Caveator
Headnote:Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, Rule 11, 19, 20 read with Item 8(a) of column `F of the Schedule – Recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher – Issued Zone wise advertisement – Practice in vogue for long time – The candidate who challenged the selection process also participated it – Exclusion of candidates having degree from the University situated in Jammu & Kashmir being not recognised – Held – The standing practice in vogue since long following the Rules should not be disturbed by the courts – If a candidate takes a calculated chance and participates in the selection process, then only because the result of the selection is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that process of selection was not proper – Universities awarding B.Ed. degrees find place in the list of Universities published by U.G.C. – The provisions of National council for teachers Education Act, 1993 has not been made applicable in Jammu & Kashmir – Exclusion on the ground of recognition is against the directions issued by this Court in Surendra Kumar Guptas case.
Single Judge has committed apparent error in directing to exclude the candidates who have obtained B.Ed. degree from the Universities situated in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The part of the judgment in that regard deserves to be quashed.
Keeping in view the standing practice in vogue since long following the Rules of 1971, we have not disturbed the selections but it would be just and fair for the State Government and its authorities to give a fresh look to the relevant rules before the next selection, particularly the issues raised in the instant petitions. We have adopted the course of non-interference. (Para 35 & 36)
``The knowledge of Rajasthani Language and Culture is an essential part which will be looked into by the authorities when the final selection list is made and opportunity of interview can be utilised at this juncture. There is still time to judge this aspect as this is requirement of the Rules and the authorities will keep in mind that those who are selected will have the requirement of knowledge of local language and conditions.
This Court finds that no interference is called for in the present selections which have been impugned after the petitioners have chosen to take their chances.
Consequently, these writ petitions having no force are partly allowed as indicated above. Any interim orders passed, are vacated.
CONTENTIONS:
(2). Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. M. Mridul, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has advanced the contentions as follows:
(i) Learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the selection process as devised by the Advertisement and the Circular cited by the respondents is wholly illegal, the same being contrary to the statutory provisions made by the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 on the anvil of Rules 11, 19 & 20 read with Item 8(a) of Column F of the Schedule attached to the Rules;
(ii) The merit of the candidates could not be determined only on the basis of the marks in the examination conducted by the different Universities having different perceptions, therefore, interview is the only justified method for selection;
(iii) Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the contention raised by the appellants to the effect that while evaluating the merit, the provision of giving credit to marks obtained in additional subject i.e., substitution of marks obtained in additional subject in place of lowest marks obtained in original examination of the graduation, is unfair & violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;
(iv) Learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the exclusion of the experience secured as a Teacher in un- aided but recognized institution is a case of discrimination, as it amounts to making unequals equal so as to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;
(3). Mr. M.R. Singhvi & Mr. M.S. Singh