Neha Tailor and Others vs State and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J—Through this batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein crave liberty to be allowed to participate in a recruitment process initiated by the respondent State Government through an advertisement dated 8.8.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment against 30522 vacancies on the posts of Vidhyalaya Sahayaks under the Rajasthan Vidhyalaya Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'').

As per the scheme of the Rules and the advertisement, the aspirants are required to be holding a degree of Sr. Secondary (10+2) from a recognized Board or its equivalent and should have gained working experience of minimum one year in terms of the definition of experience as provided in Rule 2(j) of the Rules.

The merit list for selection is to be prepared by accounting for the marks acquired by the eligible candidates in the Senior Secondary with addition of bonus marks for work experience. Rule 15 of the Rules prescribe that an aspirant for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule-1 (Vidhyalaya Sahayak) must have attained the age of 18 years and should not have crossed the age of 35 years by the first day of the January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications that is to say that the candidate should not be below 18 years and above 35 years of age as on 1.1.2016. The upper age limit is relaxable by 5 years in cases of male candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and special backward classes, women candidates belonging to General Category and economically backward classes. Relaxation of 10 years is permissible in the upper age limit for women candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and special backward classes. Relaxation of 5 years is also admissible to the applicants who, at the time of applying, "are serving" in any of the Govt. schools/State Government run educational projects as defined in Rule 2(j) of the Rules. Such persons will be deemed to be within the permissible age limit if they had been within the age limit when they were initially engaged in their earlier stint of service, even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of current direct recruitment. Meaning thereby that a candidate, who is continuing to serve in any of the positions described in Rule 2(j) of the Rules, at the time of applying in the current selection process, would be deemed to be within the age limit, notwithstanding that, he/she has crossed the upper age limit of 35 years if he/she was not overage at the time of recruitment in the earlier stint of service.

As per the advertisement, the applicants were required to submit their online application forms accompanied with the experience certificate in the prescribed format countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer.

A flood of litigation ensued after the issuance of the advertisement on various grounds. A large number of writ petitions were preferred by the aggrieved candidates before the Hon''ble Division Benches at the Principal Seat as well as the Jaipur Bench of this Court giving challenge to the validity of the Rules of 2015.

In a batch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8062/2015 "Rajni Purohit & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors." preferred before the Principal Seat of this Court, challenge was given to the validity of Rule 25 of the Rules, to the extent, the said Rule does not provide for weightage of experience gained by the persons while working in the different schools/projects of the Government of Rajasthan while "being employed through placement agencies". The Hon''ble Division Bench, after examining the controversy, allowed the writ petitions by order dated 28.08.2015 and declared that Rule 25 and Rule 2(j) of the Rules, to the extent, the persons employed through placement agencies, were excluded from the benefit of weightage for work experience, were illegal and "ultra vires" the Constitution of India. The Rules were directed to be amended accordingly. Thus, the eligible candidates, who gained the requisite experience by working in the situations described under Rule 2(j) of the Rules notwithstanding having engaged through placement agencies, are entitled to be considered for appointment in the questioned selection process. It is informed by Mr. Ladrecha, learned AAG that the State has challenged the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by this Court in Rajni Purohit''s case (supra) by preferring an SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court but till date, no stay order has been passed therein.

In another batch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11831/2015 "Masood Akhtar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", the Hon''ble Division Bench at Jaipur, by its order dated 3.9.2015, turned down the prayer made by the aspiring candidates, who, claiming themselves to be outstanding sports persons challenged the vires of the Rules, which do not allow the sports persons not having the requisite experience of one year in terms of Rule 2(j) of the Rules from participating in the recruitment process. The challenge was turned down by the Hon''ble Division Bench and the writ petitions were dismissed. Thus, an outstanding sports person, who has not gained minimum one year''s work experience in terms of Rule 2(j) of the Rules, is not entitled to apply in the questioned selection process.

In a batch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12228/2015 "Subhash Chandra & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", the issue was regarding the entitlement of Ex-servicemen to apply in the selection process on the strength of the experience gained in Army Services. The Court, after examining the controversy held that the claim of Ex-servicemen for being exempted from the requirement of one year''s work experience in terms of Rule 2(j) of the Rules, was not sustainable. The writ petitions were thus dismissed. In this background, the applications submitted by the Ex-servicemen not holding the requisite experience of one year in terms of Rule 2(j) of the Rules are liable to be rejected and they are not entitled to apply for selection as Vidhyalaya Sahayaks.

In a batch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11829/2015 "Govind Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", the issue under consideration was regarding the entitlement of the aspirants, who gained experience as Preraks, Anganwadi Workers, Guest Faculty, in Mid Day Meal project, in Child Labour Projects and other categories of employment on daily wages, contract or temporary employment. The Hon''ble Division Bench at Jaipur, by its judgment dated 17.9.2015, held that the State Government is justified in excluding these categories of aspirants from the zone of consideration. It was held that the experience gained while working in the Integrated Child Development Scheme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Anganwadi Kendras, Mid-Day Meal project, as Guest Faculty, in Child Labour Projects, as Preraks and Computer Operators appointed in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for providing computer instructions to the students, could not be equated with the kind of experience, which is required by the rule making authority under the provisions of the Rules of 2015. The challenge given to the Rules by these categories of aspirants was thus turned down by the Hon''ble Division Bench. Thus, the persons having gained experience by working in the above situation would not be entitled to apply in the recruitment process and their application forms are liable to be rejected.

Another set of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12288/2015 "Saroj Devi Raigar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." was preferred by the Vidhyarthi Mitras currently serving in the government institutions/projects but not having experience of one year. The said batch of writ petitions was dismissed by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur by order dated 9.9.2015 and the prayer made by those petitioners for relaxing the minimum one year experience criterion was turned down.

Thus, it is clear that any applicant, who does not have minimum experience of one year by having worked in the positions/situations described in Rule 2(j) of the Rules would not be entitled for consideration against the advertised vacancies.

In the batch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12304/2015 "Rameshwar Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", the question regarding the eligibility of the candidates, who had crossed the outer age limit was examined and the Court by its order dated 8.9.2015 held that relaxation in age limit of 35 years under Rule 15(10) shall be admissible only in case where, the applicant is "still serving" in any of the Govt. Schools/projects as on the date of the submission of the application forms.

Viewed in light of the above orders, it is manifest that almost all controversies regarding the entitlement of various categories of aspirants claiming appointment as Vidhyalay Sahayak in the questioned recruitment process have already been settled by this Court.

As a result, neither any scope remains nor any extensive directions are required to be issued in this batch of writ petitions but still, in order to ensure that no confusion remains at any quarter:--

"(A) It is made clear that the candidates, who gained experience in any school/scheme and in the position other than the ones provided in Rule 2(j) of the Rules shall not be entitled for consideration in view of the various judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court upholding the validity of the Rules as indicated above. At the same time, the candidates who gained the requisite experience as per Rule 2(j) while being engaged through placement agencies shall be entitled to be considered for selection.

(B) The categories of persons, who gained experience while working as Preraks, Guest Faculty, Anganwadi Workers or in Bharati Foundation, in Maa-Badi Project, Bal-Badi Project, in Anaupcharik Shiksha Project, in Mukhyadhara Shiksha Project and in Water Conservation Project, shall not be entitled to be considered for selection in the questioned recruitment process.

(C) Those, who have crossed the upper age limit as provided in Rule 15 and were not serving in any of the Govt. Schools/projects defined in Rule 2(j) of the Rules as on the date of the submission of the application forms, shall also not be entitled to be considered for selection.

(D) Those candidates, who gained experience while working in any of the schools/projects defined in Rule 2(j) of the Rules and were underage at the time of their initial entry in the earlier stint of service, will not be ousted from the zone of consideration in case presently, they are within the prescribed age limit i.e. 18 to 35 years."

The major hurdle faced by the aspirants was that despite fulfilling the requisite norms, they were not successful in uploading their online application forms in absence of the experience certificate in the prescribed proforma. The grievance raised by the candidates was that the concerned District Education Officers are not countersigning the experience certificates and therefore, they are being prevented from applying in the selection process despite being eligible.

This Court, by interim orders passed on different dates has already allowed the aspiring candidates to submit their offline application forms to the authorities but the final right of consideration has been made subject to the out come of these writ petitions.

Since the issues relating to numerous possible scenarios in relation to the recruitment, have already been settled with the decisions rendered by this Court in the abovementioned batches of writ petitions, it is now upto the authorities to either scrutinize the petitioners'' offline applications or to devise a procedure by which online application forms of those candidates, who submitted offline applications under the interim directions of this Court can be procured so as to facilitate and expedite the scrutiny process.

The respondent authorities shall scrutinize the application forms by adopting a suitable method. The application forms of the eligible aspiring candidates shall not be rejected solely for the reason of not being accompanied with the experience certificate in the prescribed proforma. In such cases, the authorities shall get the experience certificates verified before proceeding with the selection. The experience certificates shall be accepted only subject to verification by the issuing authority.

In case, the candidature of a candidate is rejected for the reason that the experience gained by the concerned candidate is not covered within the ambit of Rule 2(j) of the Rules, then in such event, the brief reason of rejection shall be communicated to the candidate concerned as early as possible.

No order as to costs.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.