Mohd. Rafiq @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:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and by an appropriate writ, order or

direction, the order dated 25.08.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside, the respondent may directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh

and to treat the petitioner as having the teaching experience of 5 years and then to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Prabodhak

in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, in the event of providing appointment to the petitioner on the post of Prabodhak, the same may be

given from the date, persons lower in merit were appointed.

 Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

The brief facts in this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner was discharging the duties of Teacher in year 2001 at Anand Bal Vidhya

Mandir Senior Secondary School, District Sirohi recognized by the State Government w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The petitioner continued to discharge his

duties until 30.09.2007. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 31.05.2008 under Rajasthan Panchayati

Raj Prabodhak Service Rules 2008, whereby the petitioner sought recruitment on the post of Prabodhak. The petitioner was having the requisite

qualification, and stood in the merit prepared by the respondents, at serial No.302 in the OBC category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Arjun Purohit has demonstrated from the select list that persons in OBC category upto serial Mo. 354

(Shivlal Barot) were given appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the order of rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was passed by the respondents on

15.12.2010 vide Annexure-5 whereby, while excluding the period during which the petitioner pursued his B.Ed course, the petitioner’

experience was calculated as 4 years 4 months and 28 days, thus, disqualifying him for appointment on the post of Prabodhak.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown that the period of B.Ed course ought to have formed part of the experience certificate, in accordance

with judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Jagdish Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 72,

the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

“11. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent â€" Director, Elementary

Education, Bikaner and produce all the relevant documents in support of his representation and the claim of having acquired 5 years' continuous

teaching experience including the training of B.Ed. Course in the University of Kashmir and the said Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner after

proper enquiry and verification into such relevant documents and by summoning the petitioner, the Head Master of the Rajasthan Public School Uchch

Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Arat Ka Jao, Siwana, Dist. Barmer and the Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer, will pass appropriate

speaking orders in accordance with law for arriving at the conclusion whether such certificate of B.Ed. Course produced by the petitioner of Rahmat-

e-Alam College of Education of University of Kashmir are genuine documents or not and if they are found to be genuine, he will be further free to

pass appropriate fresh orders in accordance with law considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. However, on the other hand,

if the said certificates are found to be false and forged, the said Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner will be free to file FIR or a criminal

complaint against the petitioner as well as Head Master of respondent No.4 â€" Rajasthan Public School Uchch Prathmik Vidhyalaya and the Dist.

Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer and the further fate of the present case shall be subject to the regular trial by the competent court

in accordance with law. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 by filing an earlier writ

petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1147/2011, but the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, categorically states that if the settled precedent law of Jagdish Parmar (supra) is complied with then

the petitioner’s tenure of B.Ed course would also be included in his calculated experience of 4 years 4 months and 28 days, and would thus, entitle

him to be appointed as Prabodhak as per his own merit.

The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner, upon which the petitioner immediately filed another writ petition, which is the present one,

in the year 2015. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has sought shelter of the Hon’ble Court, as and when, he was

aggrieved, and thus, the relief cannot be denied only on the ground that there is a delay in seeking such consideration.

Learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that previous disposal of

the petitioner’s petition did not entitle him to seek benefit in light of the precedent law of Jagdish Parmar (supra). Moreover, the recruitment which

happened in 2008 ought not to be interfered with by this Court at a belated stage in 2018.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner who was seeking

recruitment on the post of Prabodhak was facing the selection process until the year 2010, and stood in merit, at serial No.302, whereas the merit of

selected candidates apparently traveled upto 354. Thus, this Court also finds that while applying the precedent law of Jagdish Parmer (Supra) the

period of pursing the B.Ed course, which was excluded earlier by the respondents, ought to be included in the admitted experience of 4 years 4 months

and 28 days, and apparently, if such period of the B.Ed Course, which is about one year, is added to the existing experience, then the petitioner should

have been accorded appointment, looking into his own merit.

In light of the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioner for appointment afresh, while treating his teaching experience as five years, and also taking into consideration his merit position in his

respective category. If the petitioner is otherwise found eligible and meritorious, then such appointment on the post in question shall be given to him

within a period of 90 days from today. It is made clear that the petitioner’s appointment shall be prospective and it shall not be open for him to

claim any retrospective effect.