Jasoda Ahari @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“(A) That the rejection of candidate of the petitioner on the grond of passing the RSCIT course after June, 2013 may kindly be quashed and set

aside.

(B) That the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to consider theaforementioned the professional qualification of petitioner i.e. Diploma in

Computer Application dated 07.02.2013 as per the advertisement and she may be selected and appointed as per her merit in the ST (Women)

category with all consequential benefits as her juniors were appointed.

(C) Any other appropriate relief which deemed fit in the facts andcircumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy has been decided by this Hon’ble Court in Chhoga Lal Kharol Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14761/2013) on 03.03.2017, which reads as under:

“The prayer in the present petition is to appoint the petitioner on the post of LDC in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.02.2013 being eligible

in all respect.

The petitioner being qualified for the post of LDC submitted his application form through online process in pursuance to the advertisement dated

25.03.2013. While filing the application form, the petitioner filled the option of PGDCA/DCA/ADCA/DIP/CS-CA as he possessed the qualification of

PGDCA/DCA/ADCA from Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh which is established in 2009 under Section 2-F of UGC Act, 1956.

This fact was mentioned in the application form. The petitioner acquired the certificate of RSCIT on 01.06.2013.

The respondent-authorities issued the provisional select list of the selected candidates and directed them to appear before the competent authority for

verification of the documents. The petitioner stood qualified after the verification of documents and hence his name appeared at S.No.129 in the select

list and Panchayat Samiti Mavli has been alloted to him. Hence, the petitioner was not granted appointment on the ground that the Dr. C.V. Raman

University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh from where the petitioner has done his DCA course is not a recognized institute.

Reply has been filed.

The first preliminary objection in the reply is that the petitioner did not join in spite of the various opportunities being granted to him. The second

objection is that the Dr. C.V. Raman University, Billaspur, Chhattisgarh is a private University and was recognized only as “Institutional

Recognition†and the petitioner completed his education by distant learning programme from the said University in the year 2012, which is before the

recognition of the UGC.

Even otherwise, the first objection of the respondents that the petitioner did not join is not supported by any evidence. No letter is placed on record to

show that the petitioner was ever offered appointment after the selection. The second objection too cannot be sustained in view of the Annex.12

placed on record. The said document is not disputed as the same is issued by the Deputy Secretary, University Grant Commission dated 24.06.2008

clarifying that Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh  is a Private University established by an Act of State Legislature and empowered

to award degrees as specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act,1956 with the approval of its Statutory Councils, wherever required. The

Annex.R-2 placed on record by the respondents themselves in fact gives support to the fact that the respondent-University was a recognized

University even in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. There is nothing on record to show that the DCA course or the institute was not a recognized

course or a recognized University in the year 2008. Even otherwise, both the objections are contradictory to each other. In case, the certificate of the

petitioner qua the course of DCA was not held to be issued from a duly recognized University, it is not understood as to how the respondents can say

that the petitioner had not joined in spite of the appointment.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment

to the post of LDC after taking into consideration the qualification of RSCIT certificate and DCA of the petitioner as valid and give the appointment, if

he is otherwise eligible and in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Archana & Ors. (S.B. Civil Appeal No 11406-11407 of 2016).â€​

In light of the aforeqouted precedent law, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the

representation of the petitioner for grant of appointment on the post of LDC after taking into consideration the qualification of the petitioner pertaining

to RSCIT certificate as valid and thereafter, appropriate appointment shall be given to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible, and in accordance with

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Archana & Ors. (S.B. Civil Appeal No.1140611407

of 2016).