1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.646 of 2001 IN D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2363 of 2000. Mohammad Iqbal son of Shri Mohammad Khan VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 19/11/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari Mr. Sanjay Pareek, and Mr. Manoj Raghava, Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner Mr. R.P. Singh, A.A.G. for the Respondents *** BY THE COURT : We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This special appeal has been filed by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.05.2001 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for the appointment as P.T.I. Grade-III under the State Government in accordance with an advertisement issued 2 under the Scheme of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner possessed the qualification of the Secondary School Examination, which he claimed to be passed in the year 1993 and the Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer, along with a certificate in physical education from the Department of Education in the year 1995. The petitioner claimed that he was considered eligible and given the merit position at serial No.17, as stated by him in the petition and in the appeal. However, the petitioner was not given the appointment against the aforesaid post of P.T.I. Grade-III. The petitioner made inquiry and came to know that the appointment was refused to him on the ground that the candidates coming from the vocational stream are not eligible for the post of P.T.I. Grade-III and the candidates possessing the qualifications of the Senior Secondary (Academic) were eligible for the appointment to the aforesaid post. The further submission of the petitioner was that the Government itself had in the meanwhile issued circular, whereby with a view to remove the hardship permitted the candidates possessing the vocational qualifications to 3 appear in the bridge course to be conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer. The submission of the petitioner was that the petitioner took admission to the bridge course and passed the same. The mark-sheet for the same issued on 5th February 2000 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner's case further is that after having obtained the necessary qualifications of having successfully completed the bridge course, as per the circular of the Government dated 09.06.1999 the petitioner filed a representation before the respondents requesting therein them to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, but the respondents did not give any reply to the same and consequently soon thereafter on 22nd May, 2000 the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.2363 of 2000 before this Court seeking the following relief : “..... a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as P.T.I. Grade-III in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.08.1998 and consider the case of the petitioner, along with the similarly situated persons, who have been selected on the basis of the merit list prepared by the respondents”. 4 In the meanwhile, after the notices to the writ petition came to be issued to the respondents on 13.09.2000 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, similar writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.324 of 1999 (Nafis Khan Vs. State & Others) filed by the persons, who had also applied for that post in pursuance of the advertisement of 1998 and were found to be ineligible and completed the bridge course similarly as the petitioner, that the writ petition came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 30th March 2001. It appears that the petition filed by the petitioner at that point of time on 30th March, 2001 was not listed, along with the other petitions and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for early listing of the petition on which the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be listed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 07.05.2001 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner, who has not been carefully enough to approach the Court in time. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that if successive petitioners are allowed to move writ petition, the decision making process would never be completed. This writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is 5 against the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge dated 07.05.2001 that the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the writ petition by the petitioner-appellant came to be filed so soon, as a result of the bridge course was declared by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education on 5th February, 2000 and since no reply to the representation submitted by the petitioner was forthcoming from the respondents the petitioner filed the writ petition on 22.05.2000. Learned counsel submits that at the time when the writ petition came to be filed by the similarly situated persons was still pending and, therefore, the notices were issued in the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 13th September, 2000 and after the same were served the petitioner applied for early hearing of the writ petition so that the case of the petitioner could also be decided in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 30th March, 2001 allowing the writ petition of similarly situated persons. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further contended that the distinction in between the two courses i.e. Senior Secondary (Vocational) and Senior Secondary (Academic) had been held to be by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be the same and there was 6 no distinction in between the two courses for the purposes of admission as Teacher Grade-III. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the reasons, which prevailed with the respondents for rejecting the candidatures of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the qualifications of Senior Secondary (Academic) and on the other hand possesses the qualifications of Senior Secondary (Vocational) would be inconsequential in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 178, which was relied upon by the two learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Deep Chand V/s. State of Raj.& Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4080 of 2001, decided on 5th September, 2002, reported in R.L.R. 2003 (3) 90 and Badri Lal Joshi &Ors. V/s. State of Raj. & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3483 of 2002, reported in 2003 (3) R.L.R. 91, wherein similar circumstances with respect to the advertisement issued in the year 1998 and the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioner in those cases on account of the thin line of distinction taken by the State regarding two qualifications of the Senior Secondary (Academic) and Senior Secondary (Vocational) not being equivalent was held to be bad in the light of the judgment of the aforesaid case of Sunita Sharma's (supra) and the writ petition was 7 allowed. It is submitted in both these cases the Court entertained the writ petition filed in the year 2001-2002 much after the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this Court on 22nd May 2000 in identical circumstances. It is not disputed before us that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma's (supra) has held that there is no distinction in between the two qualifications of the Senior Secondary with Academic and Senior Secondary with Vocational. So far as the appointment as Teacher Grade-III etc., is concerned under Rules of 1971, since the Hon'ble and this Court in the cases of Sunita Sharma, Deep Chand and Badri Lal Joshi (supra) have held that there is no distinction in between the two qualifications of the Senior Secondary (Academic) and Senior Secondary (Vocational) and they may be treated as equivalent to each other. The ground on which the candidatures of the petitioner came to be rejected against his application submitted in the year 1998 does not survive. The petitioner in addition to the above had completed the bridge course in the light of the circular of the State Government issued on 09.06.1999. In that view of the matter, the State Government itself ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and have considered the 8 candidatures of the petitioner for the appointment. So far as the reasons given by the learned Single Judge is concerned, we find that this Court has entertained the writ petitions filed by Deep Chand (supra) on 12.10.2001 and Badri Lal Joshi and Others in the year 2002 taking into the account the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) and in the case of Deep Chand (supra) of this Court. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the special appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and the ground for rejection of his candidatures of two qualifications of the Senior Secondary (Academic) and the Senior Secondary (Vocational) was not being equivalent is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of submission of the certified copy of this Court and take a decision thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the copy of this order by the appellant. In case, the petitioner is found eligible and is appointed, the petitioner would be entitled to appointment with effect from the date, person lower in merit to him has been appointed by the respondents. The said appointment 9 would only carry notional benefits to the petitioner- appellant, he would not be entitled to the back-wages etc., for the aforesaid period. With the aforesaid directions, the special appeal stands allowed. (K.S. Chaudhari), J. (Dalip Singh), J. ashok/