// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3443/1997 Kumari Anita Jain Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order : 10.03.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sajid Ali for Shri Prahlad Singh, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court: This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with prayer that respondents be directed to consider petitioner to be eligible for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher and her candidature may be considered in pursuance to advertisement No.2/96 dated 26.07.1996 and if she is found suitable, she may be appointed as Primary School Teacher with all consequential benefits. It is further prayed that if any order prejudicially effecting the right of petitioner is passed, the same may kindly be declared illegal and may be quashed and set aisde. // 2 // Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner passed her Secondary School Examination in 1990. Thereafter, she passed Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination and also successfully completed BSTC in 1994. She was fully eligible to be appointed as Teacher Gr.III in the primary school run by the State Government. The State Government has, however, vide order dated 11.4.1996 made all such candidates disqualified for such appointment in illegal manner. It was by the said order that the State Government has withdrawn the earlier order dated 9.1.1995. It is contended that the Board of Secondary Education considered the entire matter with regard to entitlement and with reference to the Government letter dated 6.3.1994 and the Board in its meeting held on 1.4.1995 decided the Senior Secondary (Vocation) as equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) of the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments, relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Dinesh and 79 others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No.4992/98, decided on // 3 // 1.12.1998, Badri Lal Joshi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. (2003(3) WLC 213), the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (JT 2001 (1) SC Pg.100) and argued that in all the judgments, the candidates possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) have been held to be equivalent to the candidates possessing qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic) and, therefore, held eligible for appointment as Teacher Gr.III. Learned counsel also relied on a recent judgment of this court in the case of Ramraj Tada Vs. State & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No.4005/08 and other connected writ petitions decided on 8.8.2008. He also relied on a recent judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3051/1997 (Birju & Others Vs. State & Others) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1213/1998 (Sampat Kumar Vs. State & Another). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after filing of writ petitions, many of the petitioners have secured employment by now. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 9.1.1995 was // 4 // withdrawn by the answering respondent in view of judgment passed in DB Special Appeal (W) No.699/93, Gurmail Kaur Vs. Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar. Some of the candidates who were having qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) were given appointment in pursuance to the interim order passed by this court in DB Special Appeal No.857/97 on 25.9.1997 and their appointment was subject to final outcome of the case. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that even if some of the candidates have secured appointment in the meantime that would not defeat their claim to secure appointment. If they are in merit of the selection in question, they are entitled to get appointment. This issue has been examined by this court in the case of Dinesh (supra) by which several identical writ petitions were allowed by this court quashing the circular dated 19.8.1998 issued by the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur, and directed the // 5 // respondents in that case to treat petitioners therein to be eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III on the strength of Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification possessed by them. Similar view was taken in all the subsequent judgments and in the context of subsequent averments, the same were recently considered by the coordinate Bench of this court in Ramraj Tada's case, Birju & Others' case and Sampat Kumar's case (Supra). In Ramraj Tada's case following directions were issued:- “Consequently, all the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The decision taken by respondents holding petitioners ineligible on the premise of 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 posts of Primary/Upper Primary School Teachers and consider their candidatures for appointment based on their participation having taken place in pursuance of advertisement dt.30/10/06 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.” // 6 // In view of above, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in Zila Parishad of the District from where she applied and consider the her case for appointment and if it is found that any candidate lower in merit than the petitioner secured appointment, grant appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled for notional benefit for the intervening period though her seniority shall be fixed immediately above the candidate appearing next to her in the merit. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. //Jaiman//