Shama Perveen vs State And Anr.

Arun Monga, J

Under challenge herein is an order dated 11.06.2014 (Annex.P/6), vide which, the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Headmaster pursuant to advertisement dated 17.02.2012 (Annex.P/2), was cancelled on the ground that she is not in possession of the required experience certificate.

Shorn of unnecessary details, brief factual matrix leading to filing of the petition is as below:

2.1. The petitioner holds a B.Sc. and B.Ed., which are the basic qualifications required for appointment as a Teacher/Head Master under the State Government's services.

2.2. Based on these qualifications, the petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Sahyogi in a Madarsa under the Rajasthan Madarsa Board, where she worked from 21.02.2003 to 19.09.2012 (8 years and 9 months). After this period, the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Teacher in Science under the State Government's services on 20.09.2012.

2.3. The State Government promulgated the 1970 Rules for recruitment in the Education Department. These rules outline the complete recruitment process. Rule 16 mandates direct recruitment to education posts through a competitive examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). Rule 11 defines the educational qualifications, and Rule 18 specifies the process of inviting applications. After the recruitment process, Rule 20 requires the RPSC to create a merit list and send it to the State Government. Under Rule 22, candidates ranked highest on this list are selected for appointment.

2.4. In line with Rule 18, the RPSC issued an advertisement on 17.02.2012 inviting applications for the Head Master position in the Education Department.

2.5. Clause 6 of the advertisement outlined the required qualifications; a graduate degree with a teaching qualification (degree or diploma in education) and five years of teaching experience. This aligns with Rule 11, which specifies the required educational qualifications and experience for direct recruitment. The post of Head Master, included in Group 'F' of the Schedule, requires five years of teaching experience, as amended in a 27.06.2011 notification.

2.6. The petitioner, meeting all eligibility criteria, submitted her application before the deadline. After reviewing her application, the RPSC issued an admission card for the written examination.

2.7. The petitioner successfully passed the examination. Following the results, the RPSC issued an order on 20.05.2014 directing the petitioner to submit her educational qualifications and experience certificates by 26.05.2014, which she did.

2.8. To the petitioner’s surprise, on 11.06.2014, the RPSC notified her that her candidature had been cancelled due to insufficient experience. They claimed that her experience as a Madarsa Shiksha Sahyogi was not valid.

2.9. The RPSC's reason for rejecting the petitioner’s experience is unjustified. The role of Madarsa Shiksha Sahyogi involves teaching, not clerical work, and should qualify as relevant experience. The 1970 Rules only require five years of teaching experience in any school, with no distinction between government or private institutions. The petitioner’s experience in a Madarsa, run by the Rajasthan Madarsa Board, qualifies as legitimate teaching experience. Moreover, the experience certificate issued by the District Education Officer, Bhilwara, corroborates this. Therefore, the RPSC’s rejection of the petitioner’s experience is unfounded, and her candidature should not have been cancelled. Hence this petition.

Opposing the petition, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 – Education Department, wherein following stand has been taken:-

3.1. The RPSC, Ajmer, issued Advertisement No.dated 17.02.2012 (Annx.2) for recruitment to various posts in the Education Department. The petitioner also applied for the post of Head Master; however, the recruitment authority, i.e., RPSC (Respondent No.2), rejected her candidature on the grounds that she did not hold the requisite qualifications for the post. The RPSC had conducted the examination and determined that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the competitive examination due to insufficient teaching experience, as stated in the letter dated 11.06.2014 (Annx.6). The petitioner was employed in a Madarsa, and even if ineligible candidates appeared in the examination, such candidates are not entitled to any benefit or appointment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to an appointment, as she was ineligible to appear in the competitive examination due to the lack of requisite experience. The entire selection process was undertaken by the RPSC, and therefore, any detailed reply regarding the examination process, results, cutoff marks, etc., can be provided by the RPSC (Respondent No.2). All the grounds of the writ petition are denied, and the petitioner has no valid ground in her favor, as evident from the reply given by the respondents. RPSC rightly rejected the petitioner’s candidature. The prayers of the writ petition are denied, and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the case file.

Sum and substance of the lis that requires adjudication before this Court is whether or not the experience certificate of petitioner is issued by the competent authority?

Before addressing the question, at the very outset, I am constrained to observe that answer is contained in Para No.3 of reply, filed by respondent No.1, which being apposite, is reproduced hereinbelow:

“3. That the RPSC had conducted the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the competitive examination as she is not having the requisite teaching experience as held by the RPSC vide letter dated 11.06.2014 (Ann.-6). The petitioner was posted in a Madarsa. If any ineligible candidates appeared in the examination then also, such candidate is not entitled to get any benefit and could not be provided appointment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment as she was ineligible to appear in the said competitive examination on the count of lacking of requisite experience.”

Apropos, no further additional affidavit and/or rejoinder has been filed, and the aforesaid stand taken thus remains uncontroverted.

Not only am I in agreement with the stand taken hereinabove, but even otherwise, it transpires that in the absence of the selection records maintained by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission over the past 10 years, it is not possible at this stage to ascertain the petitioner’s claim that in the written examination, she obtained higher marks than the last selected candidate.

Furthermore, what compounds the petitioner’s problems is that at the time of filing the petition, she was 35 years old, and given the vagaries of litigation, this sometimes results in a situation that becomes irreversible. In the present case, since the petitioner is now over 45 years of age and beyond the upper age limit prescribed for selection, her claim on that ground alone cannot be entertained belatedly.

In the parting, I may also hasten to add that no interim protection was granted to the petitioner of any kind to reserve any post in the category she had applied for during the pendency of the writ proceedings. Therefore, there is no vacancy available today pursuant to the advertisement in question, with respect to which the petitioner had competed.

Furthermore, in order to accept the petitioner’s claim, the last selected candidate in the category the petitioner had competed in would necessarily have to make way for her. This candidate was not made a party during the pendency of the proceedings, and equity, in any case, is heavily loaded at this stage in favor of the last selected candidate, who has been serving since the date of appointment for almost a decade.

As an upshot, no grounds to interfere.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.