Vaishali Lamba @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

1.The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents in deleting name of the petitioner from the select list may kindly be declared illegal and also quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 27.2.2018 (Annex.14).

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in counselling which is going to be held on 07.3.2018 and further direct to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in subject of English in district Jodhpur as per her merit.

(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which 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.

(d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.

Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in this writ petition has earlier been decided by this Court in Vijeta Singh Tanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.9534/2017), decided on 01.9.2017, which 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 - III, Level - 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 - 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-VsVijh{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,¡ ¼"kS{kf.kd] iz"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,¡% f’k{kk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dk miHkkx ¼1½ ds 23oas Hkkx ds vUrxZr fu"kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z f"k{kk vf/kfu;e 2009 ds vUrxZr jk'Vªh; v/;kid f""k{kk ifj'kn~ dks vf/klpw uk fnuka d 23 vxLr 2010 ekin.Mkuqlkj jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk 2011 esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq ;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 vda ksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa izkjfa Hkd f""k{kk ""kkL= esa f}o'khZ; fMIyksek ¼ftl uke ls Hkh tkuk tkrk gk½s A ;k U;uwre 45 izfr"kr vda ks ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa izkjfa Hkd f"k{kk ""kkL= esa f}o'khZ; fMIykesk ¼ftl uke ls Hkh tkuk tkrk gks½] tks jk'Vªh; v/;kid f’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 f’k{kk’kkL= Lukrd ¼ch-,y-,M-½ ;k U;uw re 50 izfr'kr vdaksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa —k{kk’kkL= es a f}o'khZ; fMIykesk ¼fo""ks'k f’k{kk ½ ;k ,sls vH;FkhZ ftudk mijksDr ikB~;Øe esa izos'k gks pqdk gS vFkkZr~ tks vH;FkhZ bu ikB~;Øeks a 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.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall consider case of petitioner on the same terms as per aforementioned precedent law within a period of 30 days from today. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in counselling and in the complete selection process until final decision is taken by the respondents.