Priti Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Challenge in this writ petition is made to the Notification dated 09.12.2011 on the ground that while Schedule-II to the Rajasthan Women and Child Development (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 provides for appointment on the post of PrePrimary Education Teachers of the candidates having passed (i) Senior Secondary from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or equivalent qualification of a recognized Board, and (ii) Trained in 2 years Nursery Teacher Training (NTT) course by the institution recognized by National Council for Teacher Education, but in the latter part of clause (ii) the 'equivalent training qualification' has been illegally omitted. It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained the Nursery Teacher's Training (Two Years Diploma in Advanced Child Education & Applied Psychology), which is recognized by the Government of NCT, New Delhi.

Learned counsel submitted that by omitting the words 'equivalent thereto', the respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner of consideration for appointment and the impugned Notification inserting new clauses in Schedule-II by way of amendment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

We hardly find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of amendment the respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Legislative enactment can be struck down only if it is shown that the rule making authority was lacking in competence to frame the rule in question. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. McDowell and Company, (1996) 3 SCC 709, wherein it was held that a legislative enactment can be struck down by courts on two grounds, namely, (1) that the appropriate legislature does not have competence to make the law and (2) it takes away or abridges fundamental rights enumerated in Part-III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision. It was held that there is no third ground. If an enactment is challenged being as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. It cannot be struck down only because the Court thinks it is unjustified. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the rule making authority.

As far as the qualification of Senior Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, is concerned, the rule making authority has purposely mentioned along therewith the words 'equivalent qualification of a recognized Board' only with a view to ensuring that the candidates having secured Senior Secondary qualification from the Board of different States, which are recognized to be equivalent, may not be left out from being considered for appointment but the course of 2 years Nursery Teacher Training has to be necessarily recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, as the NCTE has been established with the object of ensuring the standard of education and maintaining uniformity in the pattern of education throughout the country. Therefore, if the respondents have decided to insert in the Rules the requirement of 2 years Nursery Teacher Training course by the institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, they cannot be said to have violated any fundamental right of the petitioner as the respondents are fully competent to do so.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. This also disposes of the stay application.