Amrit Lal Rankawat & Ors vs State & Ors on 20 November, 2008

                                       1

            S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416/2008


                    Amrit Lal Rankawat & ors.
                               v.
                    State of Rajasthan & Ors.


      Date of Order             ::          20 th November, 2008


                 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.Toshniwal, for the respondents.
                         ....



             The petitioners by this petition for writ

are   claiming          consideration           for    the     purpose       of

appointment        to    the    post       of    Prabodhak          under    the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008

(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2008"). As

per the Rules of 2008 the eligibility to be considered

for   the    purpose       of    appointment           to     the     post   of
Prabodhak is that the incumbent under consideration

must be having Senior Secondary School Certificate or

Intermediate        or    its    equivalent            with    Diploma       or

Certificate in basic teachers training of a duration

of not less than two years of bachelors degree in

elementary        education     or     graduation           with     bachelors

degree      in     education         with       five     years        teachers

experience.



             The petitioners are having the qualification

of Aacharya from Bhartiya Shiksha Samiti, Rajasthan,

Jaipur and they have also claimed to have experience
                                        2

of   five    years       teaching.         The   respondents         rejected

candidature of       the     petitioners by             not   treating the

qualification of Aacharya possessed by the petitioners

as equivalent to BSTC.



             While challenging the same, it is contended

by counsel for the petitioners that the Government of

Rajasthan     by     its    letter         dated       25.5.1995      (Anx.4)

granted recognition to the qualification of Aacharya

as   equivalent       to     the     BSTC        and,     therefore,       the

rejection     of     the    petitioners            candidature        is   not

correct.



             I do not find any substance in the argument

advanced.



             Para 5 of the document Anx.4 dated 25.5.1995

in   quite        unambiguous       terms         mentions          that   the

recognition       given     to   the       examination        concerned     is

limited     for    the     institutions          run    by    the    Bhartiya

Shiksha Samiti and that is having no application for

the institutions under the government and other non

government recognised institutions. In view of para 5

of the letter dated 25.5.1995, it cannot be said that

the petitioners are having a qualification equivalent

to the BSTC.



             An     another        argument         advanced         by    the

petitioners is that even if it is assumed that they
                                    3

are not having requisite training, then too they are

required to be considered for appointment in view of

the     fact    that    the    respondents     at    their   own   are

considering          candidature   of   the     persons      who    are

undergoing NTT and yet have not acquired any other

qualification equivalent to the BSTC. The contention

so advanced has already been considered and negatived

by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8232/2008

(Purshottam Mehta & 37 ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and

ors.)     and    in    SBCWP    No.5954/2008        (Mahaveer    Prasad

Kharol and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others)

decided on 12.09.2008 and, therefore, on thuis count

also no relief can be granted to the petitioners.



               For     the    reasons   mentioned       above,     this

petition for writ is dismissed.



                                              ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.