SBCWP No.106/09- Smt. Santosh Modi v. State of Raj. & ors. Date of Order:09.1.2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT J O D H P U R ::: O R D E R Smt. Santosh Modi v. State of Raj. & others S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.106 OF 2009 Date of Order: 09th January, 2009 ::: P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Dipesh Beniwal, for the petitioner ::: BY THE COURT In pursuance to advertisement dated 23rd November, 2006, the petitioner submitted an application for consideration as appointment as Teacher (Special Education). The eligibility to be considered for appointment on the post concerned is as follows: (i)Senior Secondary School certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent, and (ii) One year/Two year Diploma in Special Education (DSE) i.e. in Visual Impairment/Hearing impairment/Mentally challenged/Neurological condition duly recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India OR Graduate with B.Ed. in Special Education SBCWP No.106/09- Smt. Santosh Modi v. State of Raj. & ors. Date of Order:09.1.2009 2 i.e.in Visual Impairment/Hearing impairment/Mentally challenged/Neurological condition or its equivalent duly recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (iii)Candidates shall be eligible only on registration in the Rehabilitation Council of India. The petitioner was not registered with Rehabilitation Council of India, therefore, during process of selection time of 15 days was allowed to petitioner to get herself registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India. The petitioner applied for the same and a Certificate of Rehabilitation was issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India on 18th July, 2008. Prior to that, Rajasthan Public Service Commission rejected petitioner's candidature under a communication dated 24th June, 2008. While challenging the same, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for registration with the Rehabilitation Council of India and whatever time taken that is on the part of Council and for that she can not be punished. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The Commission invited applications for participation in the process of selection on 23rd November, 2006. In the advertisement itself, eligibility was given and petitioner though was not registered with Rehabilitation Council of India submitted application in pursuance thereto. The petitioner in the year 2006 SBCWP No.106/09- Smt. Santosh Modi v. State of Raj. & ors. Date of Order:09.1.2009 3 was eligible to get herself registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India but no steps in this regard were taken by her. Only in the year 2008, after getting pointed out by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission regarding deficiency in eligibility, the petitioner submitted application to get herself registered. The application was considered by the Rehabilitation Council of India and the petitioner stood registered within a period of two months. As a matter of fact, whatever delay or inaction exists in getting the petitioner registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India, that is because of petitioner herself and not because of Rehabilitation Council of India. The petitioner can not be permitted to allege inaction on the part of Council and she also can not be permitted to take any benefit for her own inaction. If the petitioner was really interested to be considered for appointment as Teacher (Special Education), she should have submitted application for getting herself registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India in the year 2006 itself. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, same is dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma