CW 1787/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1787/06 Mamta Agarwal Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 16/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Bharat Yadav, for petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by widow with the grievance that she being holder of Senior Secondary [Vocational] qualification, is eligible for the post of Primary School Teacher and her candidature has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents. Petitioner did Secondary School Examination in 1992 and so also Senior Secondary [Vocational] in the year 1994 – documents to this effect have been placed on record as Ann.1 & Ann.2 respectively. Respondent No.2 advertised post of Primary School Teacher in the Month of February, 2005. Petitioner being widow submitted application for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher, but her candidature was rejected by the respondents on the premise that she is holding qualification of Senior Secondary CW 1787/06 [2] [Vocational] which is not a requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher under the Rules. Counsel for petitioner submits that dispute raised in the instant petition has been finally decided by this court in Lumba Ram Vaishnav Vs. State of Rajasthan [2007 WLC UC-739]. It has also been brought to the notice of this court that a letter has been issued from Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan on 25th September, 2008 addressed to the Director, Elementary Education with the direction that all such applicants who are holding qualification of Senior Secondary [Vocational] be considered to be eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III. Counsel submits that in these circumstances, rejecting candidature of petitioner on the premise that she is holding qualification of Senior Secondary [Vocational], in no manner can be said to be justified. CW 1787/06 [3] Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and only fact averred that petitioner is holding Senior Secondary [Vocational], as such is not eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III under the Rules. This controversy has already been decided by this court in Lumba Ram Vaishnav Vs. State of Rajasthan [supra] - relevant Para 7 whereof is reproduced as under: “Coming to merits of this case, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there was no need to determine his merit by taking into consideration the marks obtained in bridge course as the qualification possessed by him i.e. of Senior Secondary (Vocational) itself is equivalent to the qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic). As a matter of fact the controversy involved in this petition for writ stands decided by various judgments of this Court reference of some of those are DBCivil Special Appeal (Writ) No.28/05, Pannalal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; DBCivil Special Appeal (Writ) No.DR(J) 991/2005, State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Vinod Kumar; and SBCivil Writ Petition No.5851/2004, Gaurav Sankhala v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In all the cases above after considering merits this Court directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the person concerned for recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III ignoring the directions contained in clause(1) of Circular dated 16.8.2003 and by taking into consideration marks obtained by person concerned in Senior Secondary (Vocational). The respondents, therefore, are required to consider candidature of the petitioner by determining his merit by taking into consideration the marks obtained by him in Senior Secondary (Vocational) examination.” CW 1787/06 [4] Once Government has issued letter on 25th September, 2008, controversy does not remain further res integra. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III if find place in the order of merit from the date persons lower in merit were appointed. However, she will be entitled for seniority and all other benefits flowing thereof, but not the actual salary for the intervening period during which she has not worked. Respondents are further directed to ensure compliance within three months. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1787CW06 16-1.doc