1. Petitioner sought appointment as Teacher Grade-III post-advertisement, alleging wrongful denial for possessing a vocational qualification despite purported equivalence to academic qualifications and completion of a bridge course. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 34185
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Bipin Gupta, J
Vani Ram Bunkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7166/2006
Important Points
Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic). Eligibility must be met within the prescribed period, and inordinate, unexplained delay in filing a writ petition under Article 226 justifies the denial of discretionary relief.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Eligibility
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Educational Qualifications - Equivalence - Senior Secondary (Vocational) vs. Academic - A qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), and a judgment expressly stated not to be treated as a precedent cannot be used to establish such equivalence. (Para 5.3, 5.4)
(B) Recruitment Process - Bridge Course - Eligibility - Completion of a bridge course after the prescribed deadline does not retrospectively cure the lack of eligibility for appointment under the original advertisement. (Para 5.6, 5.7, 5.8)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Discretionary power under Article 226 - Filing a petition after an inordinate and unexplained delay (over 7 years) justifies the refusal of relief, as mere submission of representations does not revive a stale claim. (Para 5, 5.1, 5.2)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Teacher Grade-III based on vocational qualification and subsequent completion of a bridge course despite significant delay in approaching the court.
(B) Recruitment Process - Bridge Course - Eligibility - Completion of a bridge course after the prescribed deadline does not retrospectively cure the lack of eligibility for appointment under the original advertisement. (Para 5.6, 5.7, 5.8)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Discretionary power under Article 226 - Filing a petition after an inordinate and unexplained delay (over 7 years) justifies the refusal of relief, as mere submission of representations does not revive a stale claim. (Para 5, 5.1, 5.2)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Teacher Grade-III based on vocational qualification and subsequent completion of a bridge course despite significant delay in approaching the court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikram Singh Choudhary
For the Respondents: Parvat Singh Panwar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikram Singh Choudhary
For the Respondents: Parvat Singh Panwar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed entitlement based on qualification equivalence established in judicial pronouncements, while respondents maintained the qualification was ineligible and the petition suffered from significant delay and laches. (Para 3 )
3. The Court noted the inordinate delay in filing, the insufficiency of representations to extend limitation, and upheld that vocational qualifications do not constitute equivalence without required credentials. (Para 5 )
4. The writ petition is dismissed due to unexplained delay, laches, and failure to meet essential recruitment eligibility criteria. (Para 6 , 7 )
Judgment/Order
Reportable
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending, inter alia, that he had applied pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1998 for the post of Teacher Grade-III, but was not selected on the ground that he possessed a Senior Secondary School (Vocational) qualification, which was not considered equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), and that he was, therefore, required to undergo a bridge course before being considered eligible for appointment.
2. The petitioner had stated in his writ petition that the petitioner had obtained the marks to the tune of 71.56%; however, he was not given appointment for the reason that the petitioner was holding a Senior Secondary School (Vocational) Examination which was not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), and, therefore, he had to undergo a bridge course. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner underwent a bridge course in the year 2000 and thus, became entitled for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III.
2.1 It is also stated in the writ petition that the Hon'ble High Court in Dinesh Chand Khatik v. State of Rajasthan ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 507 of 2002 (Decided on: 10.10.2003), has directed to consider the marks obtained by a petitioner in the case of Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination treating it to be the equivalent qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic) Examination. Furthermore, a person less meritorious than the petitioner, namely, Ratan Lal Raigar, son of Gopal Chand Raigar, has been granted appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III.
2.2 It was also stated that several requests were made by the petitioner to the respondents for granting him appointment and even several writ petitions were decided wherein it has been held that the Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) Examination. Relying upon the said judgments, the petitioner approached the respondents several times; however, he was not granted appointment. Consequently, he preferred a notice for demand of justice on 23.02.2005.
2.3 It was also stated in the writ petition that in the reply to the said notice, a factual report was sent to him on 19.07.2005, wherein it was stated that 164 posts had been advertised for the post of Teacher Grade-III and the same have been filled pursuant to advertisement No. 06/1998, and appointment could be given to the petitioner, only if the State so deem fit.
2.4 Accordingly, it has been prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in SC category with all consequential benefits, from the date on when a person less meritorious than the petitioner has been granted appointment. It has also been prayed in the writ petition that if necessary, the appointment of respondent No. 5 may be quashed and the petitioner may be granted appointment in his place.
2.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had applied for appointment but was wrongly denied appointment merely on ground that the petitioner did not possess the Senior Secondary (Academic) qualification and had only Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification. Therefore, the denial is wrong, as the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case Sunita Sharma vs State of Rajasthan in Civil Appeal No. 5554/1998 and other connected matters (Decided on 31.12.2001), has held that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) of the Board. Therefore, he submitted that once it has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2001 itself, there remains no impediment for the respondents to have denied the appointment to the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade-III merely on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the Senior Secondary (Academic) qualification and possesses Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification.
2.6 Learned counsel for the pet
