SBCWP NO.10138/07. SBCWP NO.8839/07. SBCWP NO.5230/05. 1 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10138/07. Pradeep Kumar Choyal Vs. State and others 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8839/07. Ram Kumar Singh Vs. State and others 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5230/05. Manju Meena Vs. State and others Date of Order : 27/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kuldeep Aswal for the petitioners. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. Shri S.N. Kumawat for the RPSC. **** These writ petitions raise common question of law and therefore they are decided by this common order. 2) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in first two petitions is that originally when the respondents issued advertisement, they required the candidates to produce the proof of their possessing qualification of B.Ed. as on the last date of submission of application form but subsequently the State Government granted relaxation and provided that candidates should possess B.Ed. degree till such time, result of written examination conducted by the RPSC is declared. Petitioners were having qualifications of B.Ed. when the actual counselling was held and there is therefore no reasonableness in the restriction imposed by the respondents that they should be having SBCWP NO.10138/07. SBCWP NO.8839/07. SBCWP NO.5230/05. 2 qualification of B.Ed. on the last date of declaration of result. The qualification has to be seen on the date of counselling and when the counselling was held, petitioners were having degree of B.Ed., they should not be adjudged not eligible and that their candidature on that basis should not be rejected. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Ramavtar Sharma Vs. RPSC (SBCWP No.6903/07 decided on 17/7/08) and argued that in that case, writ-petitioner was permitted by the interim-order of this Court to participate in the counselling and the writ petition was allowed by the aforesaid judgment with the direction to the RPSC to declare his result as per his participation in counselling for the post of Teacher Grade-II and accordingly consider his case for appointment. 4) Writ-petitioner Manju Meena in third petition has come out with a different case that respondents be directed to treat her eligible till the result of her B.Ed. examination was declared by the M.D.S. University, Ajmer. While other two cases pertain to the process of selection initiated by the respondents vide advertisement dated 13/10/2006, in Manju Meena, such notification was issued by the R.P.S.C. on 2/6/2004. SBCWP NO.10138/07. SBCWP NO.8839/07. SBCWP NO.5230/05. 3 5) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the State and Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the R.P.S.C. contested the writ petition and have submitted that State of Rajasthan vide notification dated 1/7/2004 already relaxed the requirement of furnishing proof of having qualification of B.Ed. and B.S.T.C. upto the last date of submission of application form by extending such time till result was declared by the R.P.S.C. This relaxation cannot be further extended for an uncertain period or till the time of counselling is held or result of B.Ed./B.S.T.C. is declared by the concerned University. It is submitted that the judgment of this Court in Ramavtar Sharma supra though directed the R.P.S.C. to consider his case because by the interim- order the petitioner was allowed to participate in counselling but there was no decision on merits of the case. 6) Upon consideration of the aforesaid arguments and perusal of the material on record, it transpires that originally the requirement of furnishing the proof of eligibility qualification of B.Ed./B.S.T.C. was originally upto the last date of submission of the application form but the government ostensibly on representation of the affected candidates and realising difficulties that in the case of some of the SBCWP NO.10138/07. SBCWP NO.8839/07. SBCWP NO.5230/05. 4 candidates that degree of B.Ed. and certificate of B.S.T.C. was awarded to them after the last date of the application form, vide amendment in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 made a uniform provision by providing that candidates should be able to produce the proof of their minimum academic qualification upto the date of declaration of result of written examination by the RPSC. Neither the notification of the government dated 1/7/2004 nor the relevant rules are under challenge. The wisdom of the government in providing the relaxation upto the last of declaration of result of written examination by R.P.S.C. cannot be questioned because it is upto the rule making authority to provide as to on what date eligibility of the candidates has to be seen or in absence of such rule, eligibility has to be examined on last date of submission of application form. But the nature of the prayer that has been made that this date should be extended further till such time either counselling takes place or till result of written examination of B.Ed./B.S.T.C. is declared by the concerned Universities, cannot be issued because that would amount to requiring the respondents to act contrary to the rules. And that this may defeat claim of many of the candidates who may have also acquired the eligibility qualification after declaration of result of written examination by the R.P.S.C., who would be SBCWP NO.10138/07. SBCWP NO.8839/07. SBCWP NO.5230/05. 5 deprived. There has to be always a cut-off date in such cases and the candidates having earlier acquired eligibility qualification after the declaration of result of R.P.S.C. would obviously be eligible for applying and competing for appointment against the posts that are notified in next selection. 7) I therefore do not find any merit in these petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/- SBCWP NO.10138/07. SBCWP NO.8839/07. SBCWP NO.5230/05. 6 S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.4461/05. in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5230/05. Manju Meena Vs. State and others Date of Order : 27/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kuldeep Aswal for the applicant-petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. Shri S.N. Kumawat for the RPSC. **** Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-