SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3345/2001. Smt.Saroj Vs. State & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2892/2001. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :- 3/7/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vinod Goyal for petitioner (in SBCWP No.3345/01). Shri Manish Acharya for petitioner (in SBCWP No.2292/01). Shri Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- These two writ petitions pertain to similar dispute, hence they are taken up together and are being decided by this common order. 2) Both the writ petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer Gr.II (English) in response to the advertisement issued by the Deputy Director (Secondary) Education, Jaipur on 30/3/2001. According to the petitioners, SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 2 they had both applied in response to said advertisement but their applications were rejected on the premise that they did hot have English as an optional subject in graduation and therefore they cannot be treated eligible for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (English). Learned counsel referring to the mark-sheets of Graduation issued by the University argued that English was one of the subjects in which they appeared and were declared pass and therefore it cannot be said that merely because English in which they appeared was compulsory subject and not optional, they would not be eligible and this being an arbitrary condition, is liable to be declared illegal. 3) Mark-sheets of gratuation submitted in the writ petition filed by Jitendra Kumar indicate that apart from English subject, he appeared in History & Political Science which were the optional / elective subjects. Mark-sheets submitted in writ petition by Smt.Saroj indicate that she appeared in the subjects of Political Science & Economics as optional subjects but both the candidates appeared in English as compulsory subjects. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that as per Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short, "Rules of 1971"), the qualification that was required for appointment on the post of SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 3 Senior Teacher was Graduate or equivalent therewith atleast two taught in school with education or montessory. Merely because English was one of the compulsory subjects and not optional subject in his graduation course, it cannot be said that petitioners did not have English as one of the subjects as per the requirement of Schedule to the Rules of 1971. 5) Shri Shiv Lal Meena, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petitions and argued that the relevant entry in Schedule cannot be so construed as to admit of a candidate who does not have even the English subject as an optional/elective subject but only had it as compulsory subject. It is argued that it is in the case of the petitioners alone that it was English was optional subject whereas all other were allowed to compete the appointment on the post of Senior Lectrurer (English), who had English as a compulsory subject. This was clearly indicated in the advertisement dated 30/3/2001 in the second column relating to qualification of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1971 that for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher, the candidate was required to have English as an optional subject by specifically mentioning that he should have atleast two such subjects which are taught in schools. Since the English subject was required to teach by SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 4 Senior Teacher upholding contention of the petitioner would lead to the conclusion that candidate though appointed as Senior Lecturer and required to teach English, would not have English as an optional subject, though it was specifically indicated in the advertisement. 6) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned-order as also Entry 8 in Section 5 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1971, column of minimum of qualification of which, provides graduation or equivalent with atleast two subjects taught in school with degree or diploma in education. Essentially therefore English subject being taught to undergraduate in which subject he is studying, cannot be taken as substitute for optional/elective subject. 7) Respondents in reply have also placed on record the clarification to this effect made by the Assistant Registrar, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohatak vide letter dated 21/5/2001 that in their University for examination of undergraduate, a candidate is required to take two compulsory subjects : (i) English and (ii) Hindi/ Punjabi / Sanskrit / Urdu and every candidate has compulsory subject or elective subject but it is further being clarified that language subject which is a compulsory subject would not be offered as elective subject. Likewise, therefore, if English is taken SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 5 as compulsory subject, it would not be offered as elective subject. Conversely, if English would have been taken as elective/optional subject, the graduation degree then would have made the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (English). In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 6 S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.3423/2001. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3345/2001. Smt.Saroj Vs. State & Anr. Date of Order :- 3/7/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vinod Goyal for the applicant-petitioner. Shri Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel. **** Consequent upon dismissal of the main petition, the present stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP NO.3345/2001. SBCWP NO.2892/2001. 7 S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.2860/2001. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2892/2001. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :- 3/7/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manish Acharya for applicant-petitioner. Shri Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel. **** Consequent upon dismissal of the main petition, the present stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil