IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7912/2009 Suresh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 17/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. DP Sharma, for petitioner. Mr. NA Naqvi, AAG, for respondents ***
Petitioner had participated in the selection process initiated by the respondents for the post of Prabodhak included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 vide advertisement dt. 31/05/2008.
The petitioner was eligible and fulfilled the conditions of eligibility as alleged in the petition but his basic grievance in the instant petition is that the bonus marks, which have been allocated by the authority while preparing merit list for such persons who have acquired experience while working in Government Projects and who had experience from Private recognized educational institution, is discriminatory and to this extent the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
It will be pertinent to refer that the Government under its administrative decision, granted 25 bonus marks to those teachers, who had experience of working in Government Projects and worked as Para Teachers/Shiksha Sahayogi etc. but those, who have teaching experience of a private recognized educational institution were granted 10 bonus marks while preparing merit list.
Counsel for respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that the coordinate Bench in CWP 5951/2008 decided on 07/01/2009 numerous controversies have been decided and has also dealt with the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner about the alleged discrimination with respect to bonus marks awarded with regard to teaching experience from a private recognized educational institution and those, who are holding experience in Government Projects, the same has been held to be valid and in consonance with the constitutional mandate.
It will be relevant for this Court to quote extract of judgment dt. 07/01/2009 passed by the coordinate Bench dealing with the issue raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, as under:-
Considering the experience of working in the Govt. Project, the employees of the Govt. Project have rightly been give preferential treatment.
In some of the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the bonus marks given to the Para Teachers as 25 bonus marks to Para Teachers and 10 bonus marks to others have been given. The petitioner also referred Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008 and contended that awarding 25 bonus marks to Para Teachers is discriminatory.
As observed herein above, special treatment is given to the Para Teachers looking to their services rendered by them to remote areas of the State imparting education. Thus, as the Para Teachers are rendering their services and working under the Govt. Project and are only receiving honorarium, therefore, giving benefit to such Para Teachers 25 marks as bonus have been awarded to them as per the policy of the State and the same cannot be said to be discriminatory.
The petitioner has also assailed the validity of Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008.
The validity of the Rules, referred above, as informed to this Court, has been upheld by coordinate Bench of this Court at Main Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Jai Pal Vs. State CWP-6109/2008 decided on 02/09/2008, the extract of which has been quoted by the coordinate Bench in Para 31 of judgment in Preeti Dixit CWP-5159/2008 while disposing of the connected petitions on 07/01/2009.
In view of the judgment referred to (supra), the submission does not hold merit.
In view of the judgment, referred to (supra) of the coordinate Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and found suitable under the Rules of 2008, he may be considered for appointment in terms of advertisement dt. 31/05/2008 and if he is not found to be eligible/suitable for any reason, it may be informed to him by passing speaking order. The respondents may ensure compliance within three months. No costs.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu-7912-CW-2009-final.doc