Surendra Kumar Dariya @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the

adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ application lead case being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition Number 7545/2017: Lalit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 28th November, 2017, observing thus:

“11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also shown from the UGC regulation that the language used in Clause 3.4.1 is using word

‘may’ and therefore is merely directory in nature. The counsel for the respondents states that if the ‘may’ is virtually taken than the

complete discretion to the State of Rajasthan shall be open to give or not to give the relaxation to the graduates and the under graduates as per clause

3.4.1 of the notification of 30th June, 2010.

Learned counsel for the respondents has furtherstated that the post graduates have already been given relaxation using their prerogative while

following the same notification whereas the relaxation is not been given for the purpose of graduates.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusingthe record of the case as well as the precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion that in its

legislative wisdom, the State has amended the Rule of 1986 vide notification dated 17.06.1993 and has closed all options by adopting the qualification

laid down from time to time by the University Grant Commission. The State of Rajasthan has all its prerogative in its legislation but once the legislation

itself adopted the UGC qualification then it was not for the State of Rajasthan to contest the case contrary to the terms of the Rules itself.

This Court has seen that Rules of 1986 have giventhe complete qualification to be laid down as per the University Grant Commission and

admittedly the University Grant Commission has vide regulations dated 30th June, 2010 prescribed for recruitment and qualification in which as per the

Regulation 3.3.0 the good academic record of 55 % has been made mandatory for the said post.

The bare reading of Regulation 3.4.1 also makes itclear that in the UGC notification, 5% relaxation is provide for the good academic record for the

graduates and the post graduates level and strangely the State has abided some portion of the notification of the Regulation whereas other portion of

the notification has been ignored. Admittedly the State utilizing the same Regulation has provided 5% relaxation at post graduates level but ignoring the

same notification has denied relaxation at graduate level with no possible reasons for making such discrimination.

This Court has seen that this notification of 2010 was absolutely binding if read in consonance with the rules of 1986 upon the State of Rajasthan

and the same is further fortified by the cover note of the NCTE notification particularly condition No.1.2 and condition No. 2 which has been

reproduced above which made the condition binding upon any college affiliated with the UGC.

This Court has seen the precedent law cited inwhich the overall concept of good academic record has been upheld by this Court but at the same

time it was held that the good academic record was to be decided by the expert. This Court upheld the expert’s opinion of stipulation of the

minimum qualifications for recruitment prescribed. It is no doubt that the University Grants Commission has best experts in the country who have

brought together the recruitment and qualification standards which were to be followed by every University and college.

It is not disputed that the all the Colleges of Stateof Rajasthan are affiliated to UGC. The condition of the advertisement stating that any

amendment in the Rules from time to time shall govern the selection process makes it very clear that any changes in the Rules shall be governed even

when the selection process is going and thus the notification of 11th July, 2016 by which University Grants Commission has amended regulation 3.4.1

by extending the scope of relaxation of 5% to the other backward classes (Creamy layer) and the same shall be applicable in the present recruitment

process as per the respondent themselves.

Thus in view of the aforesaid observations thepresent writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to provide relaxation of 5%

marks at UG Level, PG Level and for assessment of good academic record to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and PH Category as being

mandated by the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2016. Since already an interim order was operating in favour of the petitioners and they have

participated in the selection process for the post and the selections have not culminated into finality therefore the present order shall be applicable for

all petitioners only as reinitiating the selection shall be prejudicial to all the participating candidates.â€​

Though the adjudication was made applicable to the petitioners therein for re-initiating the selection, shall be prejudicial to the participating candidates,

however, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16296/2017: Suman Suthar & Ors. v. The University Grants Commission & Ors., a Coordinate Bench, at

Principal Seat, Jodhpur, on 19th December, 2017, applied the adjudication in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra), and decided the writ application of

Suman Suthar & Ors. in terms of the order in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra).

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra).