Ram Singh @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:

“(i) the respondent authority may kindly be directed to consider the educational qualification of graduation passed from the Kurukshetra University

for evaluation of the marks for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (English) as the criteria prescribed in advertisement dated

11.09.2017 (Annex.8).

(ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to not to consider the marks ofB.A. Additional English Literature passed from the Rajasthan University for

evaluation of marks for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (English).

(iii) the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the educationalqualification of Graduation passed from the Kurukshetra University as

equivalent to English Literature subject.

(iv) the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to thepetitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (English).â€​

Precisely, the facts of the case are that the petitioner has participated in the process for direct recruitment for appointment on the post of Teacher

Grade-III Level-II initiated vide advertisement dated 06.07.2016.

The petitioner passed his Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Examination from Kurukshetra University, Haryana with English subject in the year 2003. The

petitioner also passed his additional qualification in English Literature subject from University of Rajasthan in the year 2010. The petitioner filled his

application form giving the details of his educational qualification of Graduation from Kurukshetra University mentioning his percentage as 64.5.

Subsequently on account of the judgment being passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.

Civil Special Appeal

(Writ) No.1464/2016), the new advertisement was issued on 11.09.2017 which required complete updation of all the

qualifications held by the candidates concerned, as per Clause 6 of the advertisement. The Clause 6 reads as follows:

“6- ;fn fdlh vk’kkFkhZ us Lukrd ,sls vfrfjDr fo’k; esa mRrh.kZ dh gS rFkk vH;FkhZ ftl fo’k; ds fy, vkosnu dj jgk gS rks “kSf{kd

;ksx;rk vadksa dk izfrâ€​kr fudkyrs le; vfrfjDr fo‘k; ds dqy izkIrkad Hkh izfrâ€​kr fudkyus ds fy, ekU; gksaxsAâ€​

The Clause I of ‘Vishesh Note’ reads as under:

“jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ 2016 gsrq iwoZ esa tkjh foKkiu la[;k 01@2016 fnukad 06-072016 ds rgr ftu

vkosndksa }kjk ysoy f}rh; ds fy, vkosnu fd;k x;k mUgsa nqckjk vkosnu i= Hkjus dh vkoâ€;drk ugha gksaxhA ysfdu jkT; ljdkj dh la’kksf/kr

vf/klwpuk fnukad 29-08-2017 ds vuqlkj ¼foKfIr ds fcUnq la[;k 6-1¼ch½ ds vuqlkj½ viuh “kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds lcaf/kr laiw.kZ lwpuk,a vkWu

ykbZu iksVZy ij iwoZ vkosnu i= dh ,Iyhdsâ€ku jsQjsal vkbZ Mh dk mi;ksx dj viuk MkVk viMsV djuk gksxk vU;Fkk lEiw.kZ lwpukvksa ds vHkko esa

mudk iwoZ dk vkosnu i= ekU; ugha gksxkAâ€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the additional qualification in English could have been taken into account, if the petitioner did not have

the qualification of English earlier, whereas the petitioner has already had the subject of English in his Graduation, which he acquired from

Kurukshetra University, Haryana.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the marks obtained in Graduation, the petitioner’s merit is reproduced hereunder:

RTETÂ 96 150 64%

B.A.(Kurukshetra University, Haryana) 64.33%

B.A.(Additional English) (Rajasthan University)Â 46.83%

KUK + RTET = 44.80% + 19.29% = 64.09%

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner was not at fault in mentioning his additional qualification and if at all, the

respondents were to compute the merit, then they should have taken the English Subject in the Graduation itself as Clause 6 is not of mandatory nature

but is meant for the persons, who are having additional qualification and not having the main qualification in the Graduation, could be considered on

that count.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that Clause 6 as

reproduced hereinabove clearly stated that the additional qualification of English Subject was to be taken into account.

It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should not have mentioned his additional qualification in the online

application form filled by him, which is Annexure-9 of the writ petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner already stood

eligible as per the Graduation from Kurukshetra University as he had a Subject of English in his Graduation and therefore, the computation of 64.09%

marks is correct as the petitioner cannot be prejudiced on merits on account of having additional subject of English in Graduation. The petitioner was

required to fill the additional qualification information in the form as per the Note 1 of ‘Vishesh Note’, and therefore, he was left with no other

option, but to give the details and after giving such details by the petitioner, it was for the respondents to give it the appropriate weightage and

consequential computation where he was at advantage and which was lawful. Therefore, the petitioner’s marks ought to have been computed to

be 64.09% marks.

In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to calculate the marks of the petitioner only on the

basis of Graduation from Kurukshetra University, Haryana and while computing the same if his marks come to be 64.09% marks, then appropriate

appointment shall be given to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II English Subject in the OBC category as per his own eligibility

and merit otherwise.