1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3192/2001. : : Nityanand Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 12.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Reportable This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by action of the respondents in not granting him weightage of 5% for his teaching experience while considering his candidature for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (English) pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2001. The respondents by that advertisement invited applications for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Grade-II for vacancy of year 2001. The petitioner applied for the post of Senior Teacher (English). He was called upon to appear in interview vide call letter dated 30.5.2001. Interviews were held on 20.6.2001. According to the instructions issued by the respondents, they affixed a notice on the notice board indicating that weightage of 5% 2 was to be given to the candidates having experience of five years of teaching, 3% for experience of three years but less than 5 years and 1% for less than three years. Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an ex-army man. He served Army Educational Corps from 6.11.1980 till 31.10.1998. He thus had the experience of teaching for 15 years. He taught students upto senior secondary level which is equivalent to 12th standard. According to him, the Army Educational Corps is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, which issue certificates to students of this Corps. Learned counsel in this connection has relied on the certificates of teaching experience of the petitioner dated 31.10.1998 issued by Army Educational Corps. It is contended that the respondents in their instructions dated 6.8.1998 have provided that weightage for teaching experience as indicated above would be available to the candidates having teaching experience in Secondary Education/Elementary Education/Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department/ Sanskrit Education Department and also the schools aided by the Government. Action of the respondents in not granting benefit of weightage of 5% to the petitioner, even though he has taught students upto 3 senior secondary level in the Army Educational Corps is discriminatory as the respondents by their action are treating equals as unequally thereby violating his right to equal treatment, which is also violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Action of the respondents is therefore held to be illegal and unconstitutional and the petitioner entitled to weightage of 5% and on that basis, appointment. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has relied upon the Government circular dated 6.8.1998 and argued that as per the aforesaid circular, such teaching experience was admissible to the candidates having experience of teaching in Secondary Education/Elementary Education/Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department/ Sanskrit Education Department and government aided schools. The case of the petitioner being not covered by any of these, he would not be entitled to weightage for such teaching experience. Learned counsel argued that there is no case of discrimination because the petitioner does not have the experience of teaching in any of the above referred to schools and no person less meritorious than the petitioner has been appointed. 4 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the material available on record and also the Government circular dated 6.8.1998. The respondents though have asserted that according to the aforesaid Government circular only such teaching experience was admissible to the candidates, who have the experience of teaching in the schools of Secondary Education/ Elementary Education/ Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department/ Sanskrit Education Department, but they have not specifically answered the plea set up by the petitioner that he too has the experience of teaching in the Army Education Corps whose certificates are treated equivalent to the Senior Secondary certificates issued by the civilian schools and that Army Corps in awarding Senior Secondary School Certificate is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary education and such certificates are treated as equivalent to certificate issued by Central Board of Secondary education. Experience of the petitioner was for as long a period as 18 years of service in teaching the students, which fact is also not refuted by the respondents. In view of all these facts, it can hardly be said that the petitioner does not have the experience of the level for which the weightage is granted to other candidates having such experience. It is 5 indeed a case of discrimination because the respondents by their action have treated equals as unequally. There is no justification for not granting such weightage to the petitioner when at the same time it is granted to a candidate having had the experience of teaching the students of only primary school level. Action of the respondents, therefore, deserves to be declared illegal and unconstitutional and it is accordingly declared as such. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held eligible to the weightage of 5% on the basis of teaching experience of 18 years. The respondents are directed to accordingly consider his case for appointment in selection process initiated vide advertisement (Annex.7) for the year 2000-01 and if on grant of weightage of 5%, the petitioner is found to come within the merit, consider his case for appointment and eventually if any lessor meritorious candidate is found to be appointed, should appoint him with effect from the date on which such candidate was so appointed. The petitioner however, shall be entitled to only notional benefits for the intervening period. 6 Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.20.