Seema Meena @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Rejection List (Annex-10), the condition no.6.6 mentioned in the amended advertisement dated

11.09.2017 (Annex-6) and any order denying the candidature of the petitioner for selection and appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level

II) English on account of RTET Qualification passed before the B.Ed. Examination may kindly be quashed and set aside in pursuance of the amended

advertisement dated 11.09.2017.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to consider the RTET, 2012 qualification of the petitioner passed

on 05.08.2013 (Annex-2) as required in the condition no.6.8 in the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 (Annex4) for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level

II) English in pursuance of the amended advertisement dated 11.09.2017.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and

provide the appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) English in pursuance of the amended advertisement dated 11.09.2017 with all

consequential benefits.

D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction whichthis Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly beallowed with costs.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Sita Ram & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14476/2017 decided on 01.02.2018),

which reads as under:-

“1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

“1.By an appropriate, writ order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to grant accept the offline application forms and if petitioners

stand in merit given the appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the respective category as per their merit against

the vacancies advertisement by the respondents for the post in pursuance of the advertisement in 2016.

By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to consider the qualification of one year certificate course of

B.Ed. In the qualification of the petitioners and consider the case of the petitioners for their selection and appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III

in pursuance of advertisement in 2016.

Any other appropriate writ, order or directionwhich this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindlybe allowed with costs.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioners applied for the post of Teacher Grade III-2016 (Level-II). The petitioners completed their

RTET examination on 05.08.2013 and the B.Ed result of the petitioner was declared on 12.12.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that sole

reason for disqualifying the petitioners from the candidature is that their result of RTET examination was prior to B.Ed examination. The petitioners

form were accepted off-line on the order of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present matter is covered by the judgment of Vijeta Singh Tanwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9534/2017) decided on 01.09.2017. The judgment reads as follows :-

“By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge to rejection of her candidature by the respondents for appointment on the post of

Teacher Grade â€" III, Level â€" I interalia on the ground that the petitioner had obtained Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) subsequent to

clearing Rajasthan Teachers’ Eligibility Test (RTET).

Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade - III, Level â€" I

pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 issued by the respondents. The petitioner was declared successful and was called for document

verification. During the document verification her candidature has been rejected by the respondents interalia observing that the petitioner completed

her Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course on 12.05.2012, whereas she had cleared Rajasthan Teachers’ Eligibility Test (RTET) on

28.02.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the petitioner’s rejection contended that the same is ex-facie illegal and against the condition of the

advertisement itself. It will not be out of place to reproduce the reason ascribed for holding the petitioner ineligible :-

1 5004 710000963 Vijeta Singh Tanwer ch,lVhlh 12-05-2012 dh ,oa vkj-VsV ijh{kk 28-02-2011 dks mRrh.kZ djus ls

Learned counsel invited attention of this Court towards Clause No.6.8 of the advertisement, which reads as under :-

^^6-8 vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vfUre fnukda rd lHkh U;wure ;ksX;rk,¡ ¼â€kS{kf.kd] izâ€kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk½

vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gSAa **

Mr. Khet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the requisite eligibility criteria for Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility

Test, which reads thus :-

^^“kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk,¡% fâ€k{kk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dk mi Hkkx ¼1½ ds 23oas Hkkx ds vUrxZr fuâ€kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z fâ€k{kk vf/kfu;e 2009

ds vUrxZr jk’Vªh; v/;kid fâ€k{kk ifj’kn~ dks vf/klpw uk fnuakd 23 vxLr 2010 ekin.Mkuqlkj jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk 2011 esa lfEefyr

gksus grs q ;ksX;rk,¡ ,oa U;uw re vda izfr'kr fofHkUu oxksZa ds fy, fuEukuqlkj gksx%sa &

1- U;uw re ;ksX;rk & Lrj & izFke ¼d{kkI-V ½

¼d½ U;uw re 50 izfr'kr vdaksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa izkjfa Hkd fâ€k{kk “kkL= esa f}o’khZ; fMIyksek ¼ftl uke

ls Hkh tkuk tkrk gk½s A

;k

U;uw re 45 izfrâ€kr vda ks ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa izkjfa Hkd fâ€k{kk “kkL= esa f}o’khZ; fMIykes k ¼ftl uke ls Hkh

tkuk tkrk gks½] tks jk’Vªh; v/;kid fâ€​k{kk ifj’kn~ ¼ekU;rk ekud vkSj fØ;kfof/k½ fofu;e 2002 ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;k x;k gksA

;k

U;uw re 50 izfr'kr vda ksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa 4 o’khZ; izkjafHkd fâ€​k{kk “kkL= Lukrd ¼ch-,y-,M-½ ;k

U;uw re 50 izfr'kr vda ksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa fâ€​k{kk “kkL= esa f}o’khZ; fMIykes k ¼foâ€​ks’k fâ€​k{kk½

;k

,slss vH;FkhZ ftudk mijksDr ikB~;Øe esa izo'sk gks pqdk gS vFkkZr~ tks vH;FkhZ bu ikB~;Øeksa es a v/;;ujr gS a os Hkh vkons u dj ldrs gSAa **

Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter invited attention of this Court towards the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government

whereby it has been clarified that the candidates who have got themselves enrolled for Rajasthan Teachers’ Eligibility Test (RTET) shall be

eligible for appointment in wake of the guidelines issued by the NCTE on 11.02.2011.

Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents supported the stand of the State and submitted that the petitioner’s candidature has been

rightly rejected inasmuch as the persons having cleared Rajasthan Teachers’ Eligibility Test (RTET) prior to completion of the Basic School

Teacher Certificate Course (BSTC) cannot be said to be fully eligible. According to him completion of Rajasthan Teachers’ Eligibility Test

(RTET) before obtaining the Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) is like clearing Graduation before the Senior Secondary.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondents

is not only illegal but also contrary to the condition of the advertisement and circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government.

A perusal of the condition No.6.8 of the advertisement, the eligibility condition of RTET examination and so also the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued

by the State Government leaves no room for ambiguity that a person can very well clear Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test (RTET) before

completion of his/her Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course.

In view of the above, rejection of petitioner’s candidature (Annex.12) is illegal, for which it is quashed and set aside. The respondents are

directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today.

The petition stands allowed.â€​

Thus, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners on their own merits and eligibility while not rejecting

their candidature on the account of the fact that petitioners completed their RTET examination prior to the B.Ed examination.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the aforesaid submission.

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, while directing the respondents to consider the

petitioner on her own merits and eligibility while not rejecting her candidature on the account of the fact that petitioner completed her RTET

examination prior to the B.Ed examination.