Pooja Sharma Alias Pooja Tiwari vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ Petition and by an appropriate writ, order

or direction:

That the impugned rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Social Science) under the category of

General (Widow) may be declared as arbitrary, illegal and thus, may be set aside.

That the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the humble petitioner for selection on account of her merit in pursuance of the

advertisement dated 09.04.2018 for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Subject: Social Science) and thus, may be considered eligible for

appointment.

Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances o the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 09.04.2018 for various posts including the post of Senior

Teacher/Teacher Grade-II (Social Science) and in pursuance to the said advertisement, petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade-II (Social

Science). Counsel further submits that according to the aforesaid advertisement, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Teacher

Grade-II (Social Science) is as under:-

:- Graduate

or equivalent examination with at least two subjects out of the subjects - History, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Public

Administration and Philosophy as optional subjects and Degree of Diploma in education recognized by Government of Rajasthan.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner is having Sociology subject in her graduation including Drawing, Painting and Home Science.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 40,4

wherein para Nos.26 & 27 has held as under:-

We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K in the subsequent decision in Anita.

The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher

qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of

recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of

judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be

determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for

the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher

qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the

ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge

and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job,

the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to

the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is

trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision- making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that

require the creation of job opportunities across the social structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That

is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which

presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision

in Jyoti K.K. turned.

The requirement prescribed in the advertisement is ""graduate or equivalent examination with at least two subjects

and admittedly the petitioner is holding the qualification only in one subject i.e. Sociology, as such the petitioner does not fulfill the prescribed

requirement in terms of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 as well as under the rules for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-II (Social

Science).

In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.