{ 1 }
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6090/2008.
(SMT. JAYA VS. STATE & OTHERS)
DATE OF ORDER : 24.10.2008.
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Mr. Sachin Acharya for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, AAG, for the respondents.
The candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of
appointment as Prabodhak under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 has been rejected on the count
that she is having Senior Secondary School Certificate
(Vocational). It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the controversy involved in this petition for writ is no more
res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Ramraj Tada vs. State and others (SBCWP No.4005/2008)
decided on 08.08.2008. In the case aforesaid, this Court held as
under:
“In the facts of instant case, this Court is of
the opinion that since NCTE alone holds
competence and in absence of guidelines or
directives from NCTE, decision impugned
taken by respondents in denying
consideration to such candidates holding
{ 2 }Senior Secondary (Voc.) as ineligible in no
manner can be said to be in consonance with
existing Scheme of Rules, 1996 particularly in
terms of amendment dt.28/06/06 and such
action of the respondent deserves to be set
aside.
Consequently, all the petitions succeed and
are hereby allowed. The decision taken by
respondents holding petitioners ineligible on
the premise in their qualification of Senior
Secondary (Vocational) without Bridge
Course, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Respondents are directed to consider
petitioners who hold qualification of Senior
Secondary (Vocational) as eligible for the post
of Primary / Upper Primary School Teachers
and consider their candidatures for
appointment based on their participation
having taken place in pursuance of
advertisement dated 30.10.2006 and if their
names find place in order of merit in
respective category, they may be considered
and if found suitable, be appointed, however,
they will be entitled for seniority, notional
fixation etc., and all other service benefits
but will not be entitled for salary for the
intervening period during which they did not
actually work.”
{ 3 }
In the instant matter also, the respondents are
making appointment to the post of Prabodhak i.e. a post relating
to teaching and while making appointments to the post
aforesaid, the respondents are required to adhere the norms
prescribed by National Council of Teachers Education.
In view of it, the judgment given in Ramraj Tada’s
case (supra) is having absolute application in present
controversy too.
Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The
respondents are directed to consider candidature of the
petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of
Prabodhak as per the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. If the petitioner stands in merit,
appointment be accorded to him.
(GOVIND MATHUR)J.
Anil/