Prakash Kalal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is claiming for the following reliefs :-

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders dated 24.8.2015 (Annex.6) and 21.1.2017 (Annex.8) issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondentsbe directed to reconsider case of the petitioner while considering the teaching experience as complete one year without any break and then provide him appointment as Prabodhak with all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date persons lower then the petitioner in merit were given appointment as Prabodhak.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which thisHon`ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to thepetitioner.”

Counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Fariq Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2884/2015, decided on 12.4.2018). The judgment is reproduced as under :-

“ 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25.08.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside, the respondent may directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and to treat the petitioner as having the teaching experience of 5 years and then to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, in the event of providing appointment to the petitioner on the post of Prabodhak, the same may be given from the date, persons lower in merit were appointed.

Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

The brief facts in this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner was discharging the duties of Teacher in year 2001 at Anand Bal Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, District Sirohi recognized by the State Government w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties until 30.09.2007. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 31.05.2008 under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules 2008, whereby the petitioner sought recruitment on the post of Prabodhak. The petitioner was having the requisite qualification, and stood in the merit prepared by the respondents, at serial No.302 in the OBC category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Arjun Purohit has demonstrated from the select list that persons in OBC category upto serial Mo. 354 (Shivlal Barot) were given appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the order of rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was passed by the respondents on 15.12.2010 vide Annexure-5 whereby, while excluding the period during which the petitioner pursued his B.Ed course, the petitioner’ experience was calculated as 4 years 4 months and 28 days, thus, disqualifying him for appointment on the post of Prabodhak.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown that the period of B.Ed course ought to have formed part of the experience certificate, in accordance with judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Jagdish Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 72, the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

“11. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent — Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner and produce all the relevant documents in support of his representation and the claim of having acquired 5 years' continuous teaching experience including the training of B.Ed. Course in the University of Kashmir and the said Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner after proper enquiry and verification into such relevant documents and by summoning the petitioner, the Head Master of the Rajasthan Public School Uchch Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Arat Ka Jao, Siwana, Dist. Barmer and the Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer, will pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law for arriving at the conclusion whether such certificate of B.Ed. Course produced by the petitioner of Rahmat-e-Alam College of Education of University of Kashmir are genuine documents or not and if they are found to be genuine, he will be further free to pass appropriate fresh orders in accordance with law considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. However, on the other hand, if the said certificates are found to be false and forged, the said Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner will be free to file FIR or a criminal complaint against the petitioner as well as Head Master of respondent No.4 — Rajasthan Public School Uchch Prathmik Vidhyalaya and the Dist.

Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer and the further fate of the present case shall be subject to the regular trial by the competent court in accordance with law. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 by filing an earlier writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1147/2011, but the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, categorically states that if the settled precedent law of Jagdish Parmar (supra) is complied with then the petitioner’s tenure of B.Ed course would also be included in his calculated experience of 4 years 4 months and 28 days, and would thus, entitle him to be appointed as Prabodhak as per his own merit.

The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner, upon which the petitioner immediately filed another writ petition, which is the present one, in the year 2015. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has sought shelter of the Hon’ble Court, as and when, he was aggrieved, and thus, the relief cannot be denied only on the ground that there is a delay in seeking such consideration.

Learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that previous disposal of the petitioner’s petition did not entitle him to seek benefit in light of the precedent law of Jagdish Parmar (supra). Moreover, the recruitment which happened in 2008 ought not to be interfered with by this Court at a belated stage in 2018.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner who was seeking recruitment on the post of Prabodhak was facing the selection process until the year 2010, and stood in merit, at serial No.302, whereas the merit of selected candidates apparently traveled upto 354. Thus, this Court also finds that while applying the precedent law of Jagdish Parmer (Supra) the period of pursing the B.Ed course, which was excluded earlier by the respondents, ought to be included in the admitted experience of 4 years 4 months and 28 days, and apparently, if such period of the B.Ed Course, which is about one year, is added to the existing experience, then the petitioner should have been accorded appointment, looking into his own merit.

In light of the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment afresh, while treating his teaching experience as five years, and also taking into consideration his merit position in his respective category. If the petitioner is otherwise found eligible and meritorious, then such appointment on the post in question shall be given to him within a period of 90 days from today. It is made clear that the petitioner’s appointment shall be prospective and it shall not be open for him to claim any retrospective effect.”

Counsel for the respondent assures the Court that necessary reconsideration shall be made as per merit position of the candidate in his/her respective category subject to availability of vacancy.

In view of aforesaid statement, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider petitioner’s claim strictly in light of the aforementioned precedent law and in case the petitioner is otherwise found eligible and meritorious, then appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of 60 days from today subject to availability of vacancy.