Govardhan Lal Gari vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has introduced himself to be a graduate holding as well B.Ed. degree. According to him, he had also served as a Teacher from 1.7.2000 to 30.6.2003 at Upper Primary School, Sajjangarh. That he had also undertaken various academic courses pertaining to different facets of the education system, has been stated. In response to the advertisement dated 31.5.2008 issued for appointment to the post of Prabodhak under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the petitioner had applied but was not called for interview as he was not construed to be eligible because he was lacking in teaching experience as prescribed by Rule 14 of the Rules. Situated thus, the petitioner has impeached the vires of this provision of the Rules repudiating it to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above. He has argued in particular that as the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") does not stipulate such experience to be an essential condition of eligibility for the post of Prabodhak, the provision to that effect made in the Rules is apparently non est. Further, as this prescription is in contravention of the criteria stipulated by the National Council for Teacher Education, on this count alone, it is ab initio void. The decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in All India Judges'' All India Judges Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kallash Chandra Harijan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, have been relied upon.

The pleaded case and the documents annexed to the petition as well as the arguments advanced have been appropriately analyzed.

Rule 14 of the Rules, which prescribes the conditions of eligibility for the post of Prabodhak being of formidable significance is quoted hereinbelow:--

Academic and professional qualifications:--A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in the Schedule shall, in addition to such experience as is required shall possess-

(i) the qualification and experience given in column 6 of the schedule, and

(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Scripts and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.

Schedule:--

It would be patent from the above extract that five years teaching experience without any break in any recognized educational institution/educational project is an imperative condition of eligibility for the post of Prabodhak.

Whereas paragraph 32 of the decision in All India Judges'' Association (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the acceptance of the recommendation of the Shetty Commission doing away with the requirement of three years standing at the Bar for a candidate aspiring to enter judicial service, the determination in Kailash Chandra Harijan (supra) dilates on the validity of the addition of the qualification of B.Ed. as an alternate of BSTC in Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

In our considered opinion, the analogy sought to be drawn from the decision in All India Judges Association (supra) is untenable on more than one count. Apart from apparent distinguishing features inherent in the two Services involved, unlike in the reported decision, there is no recommendation forthcoming in the instant case to dispense with the requirement of experience as prescribed to be an obligatory norms of eligibility. On the other hand, the rule making authorities having regard to the nature of the post and the duties relatable thereto did expectedly prescribe this criterion being satisfied about its essentiality to ensure quality and excellence in service. In absence of any unimpeachable material to the contrary, such a legislative intendment ought not to be lightly displaced.

The issue involved in Kailash Chandra Harijan (supra) in the contextual facts are wholly different from those as obtain herein. This decision as well, in our estimate, does not advance the case of the petitioner.

In all, we do not find any weighty or persuasive reason to conclude that the stipulation of experience in the form and substance as incorporated in Rule 14 of the Rules is either irrelevant or in contravention of any law so as to render it illegal and unconstitutional. The rule making authorities having ordained the same to promote and consolidate the standard and quality of the service involved, no prayer for interference as sought for can be countenanced. The petition thus fails and is rejected.