Mohan Lal Purohit vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner-Mohan Lal Purohit was initially appointed as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) in the respondent Department on 10/2/1993. By the advertisement Annex. 1, the post of Head Masters were advertised by the respondent RPSC and the petitioner having the requisite degree of B.Ed. from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (Haryana) and having 5 years experience in teaching of Social Sciences also applied for the said post and he undertook the written examination but was informed that he cannot be called for interview because his B.Ed. Degree was not recognised by the State of Rajasthan and in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, which was filed on 21/10/2003. While issuing notices, the coordinate bench of this Court on 22/10/2003 also granted interim order and provisionally permitted the petitioner to appear in the interview for the post of Head Master and directed the respondents to keep the result of the interview in sealed cover, subject to the decision of the present writ petition. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the interview but his result was kept in sealed cover as per the directions of this Court.

In reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent RPSC, the respondent RPSC inter alia also contended that the degree of B.Ed. from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak by correspondence course is not recognised by the State Government under the provisions of the National Teachers Education Council Act, 1993 and moreover since the petitioner having been appointed as PTI could be said to have gained experience of teaching for more than 5 years and, therefore, he could not be considered for appointment as Head Master in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. 1 issued in the year 2002.

The lawyers are on strike for last two months, which is contrary to the various decisions of Supreme Court and, therefore, the parties present before the Court were heard by the Court without the assistance of the lawyers. The petitioner himself and the Secretary, RPSC were heard in the matter.

After appointment of the petitioner in the year 1993 as PTI, since 1996 he was additionally discharging the services of teacher of Social Sciences which is evident from the certificate Annex. 2 dated 11/10/2003 issued by the Head Master of the Government School at Sirohi, which certificate has not been controverted and refuted by the respondents in their reply. As far as the recognition of the petitioner''s B.Ed. Degree is concerned, the petitioner drew the attention of the Court towards the Circular dated 16/12/2003 issued by the State Government in which the State Government has clearly stated that vide Notification No. F.7(1) Education-3/81 dated 12.5.1994 the B.Ed. Degree from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (Haryana) was recognised as equivalent B.Ed. degree (Correspondence) by the State of Rajasthan. The said issue, therefore, no longer survives and it stood decided in favour of the petitioner.

The other issue relating to requisite experience also deserves to be decided in favour of the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner was additionally working as subject teacher of Social Sciences since 1996 and having the requisite experience of more than 5 years, he was fully eligible and entitled to be considered for the post of Head Master in pursuance of Advertisement No. 6/1 of 2002 (Annex. 1). Thus, there is not hurdle in the way of the petitioner for being considered for the post of Head Master. The petitioner was also interviewed for the said post of Head Master after he cleared the written examination under the order of this Court but the result of the same is not before this Court at this stage, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment on the said post of Head Master in pursuance of the Advertisement Annex. 1 subject to his having acquired minimum marks in the interview, which was held under the directions of this Court vide order dated 22/10/2003.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the vacant post in pursuance of the selection process initiated vide Annex. 1 Advertisement No. 6/1-2002 and pass necessary consequential orders in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

The petitioner shall be informed of the marks obtained by him in the written examination as well as the interview and if he stands in the merit, the requisite appointment order appointing him as Head Master shall be passed w.e.f. the date the other persons in the said selection process were offered such appointment. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any financial benefits for the past period but other notional benefits like seniority etc. shall be available to the petitioner. No order as to costs.