Kaushalya vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.�The petitioner, in the instant writ application, aggrieved of the order dated 21st February, 2012, passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ''Commission'', for short), has approached this Court with the prayer under the relief clause, which reads thus:--

"i) quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.2.12 (Annexure-8) passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and further pleased to take on record any adverse order (if passed) during pendency of this writ petition and further pleased to quash and set aside the same and

ii) quash and set aside the notification dated 16.4.10 and further pleased to hold that the same cannot be applied with retrospective effect on those candidates who have passed their B.Sc./B.Ed., prior to issuance of this notification and declare the same as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iii) further pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.II - Science and further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr.II Science with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date on which the other persons have been given appointment."

For the purpose of adjudication of the controversy raised by the petitioner in the instant writ application, the essential material facts needs to be first noticed. The petitioner submitted application for consideration of her candidature, in response to the advertisement dated 8th August, 2008, whereby the Commission invited the applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-II in various subjects including the Science subject. The advertisement was followed by a corrigendum dated 4th August, 2010, wherein the number of vacancies was increased. The educational qualifications were also modified with retrospective effect vide Notification Number F.2(6)DOP/A-II/84 dated 16th April, 2010. For the post at Code Number 42 i.e., Science; the candidate was required to possess three optional subjects i.e., Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. The petitioner had the above three compulsory subjects in her Senior Secondary, but in her Graduation, she had Botany, Chemistry and Computer Application. The result of the examination was declared on 20th June, 2011, with cut off marks of the selected candidates and the information was also reflected on the Website of the Commission. However, the answer key was not published in the newspapers. The petitioner''s name found place in the reserved list at number 1443-AR-A and her result was declared on 3rd November, 2011. She submitted her application form with original documents for verification and counseling on 6th November, 2011. The respondent Commission vide impugned communication dated 21st February, 2012, rejected her candidature for she did not have "Botany" in her Graduation. But in fact, she did not have "Zoology" as the third subject, which she additionally acquired in the year 2012.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, has assailed the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner since the notification dated 16th April, 2010, has been given a retrospective effect with reference to the vacancies of the year 2008. The learned counsel would further submit that the action of the respondent-Commission is arbitrary and illegal for prescribing the minimum eligibility for the post with reference to Science subject by including a condition of three optional subjects i.e., Zoology, Botany and Chemistry in Graduation, whereas there was no such condition of educational qualifications was included in the eligibility criteria in the original advertisement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy raised in the instant writ application, is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th August, 2011, on the identical issue in a batch of writ application, lead case being Devi Bijani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3836 of 2011), at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, wherein the constitutional validity of the notification dated 16th April, 2010 (supra), by which the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1971'', for short), were amended during the process of selection, was unsuccessfully challenged. In the light of the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2011, the identical writ applications, pending before this Court at Jaipur Bench, were also dismissed on 13th September, 2011 in Writ Petition Number 8728 of 2011. However, the impugned judgments were subjected to further scrutiny in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Number 1719 of 2012 (Manoj Kumar Khandelwal), which was adjudicated upon by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2013, disposed of the appeals, leaving open all the legal issues involved therein, observing that since the Rules were amended during the period of process of selection, the candidates who had appeared in the examination and were found eligible on the date of issuance of the advertisement, advertising the vacancies and stood qualified, deserve to be appointed. However, the relief was restricted only to those candidates, who had approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the High Court before the decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3836 of 2011 i.e., 25th August, 2011.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

From the admitted facts, it is evident that the challenge projected to the constitutionality of the amendment in the Rules of 1971, with reference to the advertisement involved in the selection process vide notification dated 16th April, 2010, was not sustained, after a detailed scrutiny by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, as is evident in view of the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2011; in the batch of writ applications lead case being Devi Bijani (supra).

On a challenge to the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2011, in a batch of Special Leave to Appeals (Civil), lead case being Manoj Kumar Khandelwal (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court disposing of the appeals held thus:--

"Leave granted.

Heard the matter at great length.

In the facts and circumstances arising in these cases, as the rules stood amended during the continuation of the process of selection, those persons who had appeared in the examination and had been found eligible on the date of issuance of advertising the vacancies, and stood qualified, deserve to be appointed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, this relief is restricted only to those who had approached this Court and to those who had approached the High Court before the date of decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3836/2011. We further clarify that if any person had not taken the examination or failed to qualify the written examination, his case shall not be considered.

With these directions, all the appeals stand disposed of. However, all legal issues involved in these appeals are left open."

A bare perusal of the order dated 23rd May, 2013, would reveal that the relief has been restricted only to those candidates who had approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the High Court, before the date of decision in the batch of writ applications lead case being Devi Bijani (supra).

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not approach this Court since her candidature has been declined by the respondent-Commission on 21st February, 2012, and therefore, she deserves for grant of similar relief as extended to the identically situated candidates by the Hon''ble Supreme Court i.e., in the case of Manoj Kumar Khandelwal (supra).

At the very outset, the reasoning sounded very attractive, but on the scrutiny of the directions, issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court after hearing the matters for a great length, while disposing of the batch of appeals in the case of Manoj Kumar Khandelwal (supra), it is clearly reflected that the relief has been specifically restricted only to those candidates, who had approached the High Court before the decision on Writ Application Number 3836 of 2011 i.e., 25th August, 2011, in the case of Manoj Kumar Khandelwal (supra).

For the reasons and discussions herein above, we are not persuaded to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. The writ application is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

In view of the final adjudication of the writ application, the stay application stands closed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.