1 S.B.C.W. NO. 7489/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7489/2006 Lalit Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : : 20/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. I.R.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. G.R.Kalla, Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT: By an application being I.A. No.13973/08, the petitioner seeks to decide the writ petition in terms of the order passed by this Court in Ram Raj Tada Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCW No.4005/2008 decided on 08.08.2008. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination, 1996 from the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer and also passed Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination, 1998 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Thereafter, the petitioner passed Senior Secondary Bridge Course Examination, 2000 from the Board of Secondary 2 S.B.C.W. NO. 7489/2006 Education, Rajasthan. The petitioner has also passed B.A. Final Examination 2001 from the Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur vide Annex.4. The petitioner had a degree of B.P.Ed. to his credit which he did in the year 2002 from Mohal Lal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur vide Annex.5. The petitioner also participated in State Level Hand Ball Championship 1997-98 at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Saiti, Chittorgarh vide Annex.6. The respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III vide Annex.7. However, the respondents issued a circular dated 16.8.2003 Annex.8 whereby the marks of Senior Secondary Bridge Course were only to be counted for the purpose of preparing the select list for the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III and the petitioner is aggrieved by the Circular dated 16.8.2003 to the extent confining the petitioner's case for consideration to the marks obtained by him in Senior Secondary Bridge Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant case came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Panna Lal Joshi Vs. State & Ors. 2006 (6) RDD 3458 as also in case of Ram Raj Tada Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCW No. 4005/2008 and 21 other writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similar view has been taken by this Court in Gopal Lal Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. SBCW 3 S.B.C.W. NO. 7489/2006 No.5938/2005 decided on 28.1.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the Division Bench in Panna Lal Joshi Vs. State & Ors. (supra) has been challenged by the State before Hon'ble Supreme Court which is pending consideration. However, learned counsel for the respondents failed to point out as to whether any interim order staying the operation of the judgment of this Court in Panna Lal Joshi Vs. State & Ors. (supra) has been passed. In Panna Lal Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in paras 16 and 18 observed as under:- “16. Coming to the merit of the case, it appears to us that to the extent a person who has passed Senior Secondary (Vocational) Course has to be treated as eligible on its own force without referring his other qualifications of Senior Secondary (Academic) and the Bridge Course for considering his eligibility if the recruitment to posts in question is concluded by the decision of Supreme Court. In that event, the petitioner is entitled to claim determination of his merit on the basis of his marks in Senior Secondary (Vocational) examination itself without recourse to marks obtained in Bridge Course which does not fall within the ambit of necessary qualification. It is not a case that the person is required to hold both the qualifications 4 S.B.C.W. NO. 7489/2006 i.e. Senior Secondary (Vocational) as well as Senior Secondary (Academic). If a person is holding the only qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic) the requirement of having a bridge course was additional to it. In that event considering the marks obtained at Higher Secondary or Bridge Course together may be considered. However, when Secondary Senior (Vocational) Course itself is complete required qualification one cannot be denied merit by referring to marks obtained in bridge course. 18. As a result this appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner-appellant for appointment, if on the basis of his marks obtained in Senior Secondary (Vocational) and by excluding the consideration of marks obtained in optional subjects in Bridge Course he finds place in order of merit in accordance with the directions issued in Vinod Kumar's case.” In Ram Raj Tada Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), this Court noticed that in Kailash Chandra Harijan Vs. State 2006 (4) WLC 337, Raj., observed that it is the NCTE being expert body created under NCTE Act, 1993, which alone holds to maintain standard of education particularly teaching education 5 S.B.C.W. NO. 7489/2006 and the State Government is under obligation to frame its Rules in conformity with qualifications for Teachers in educational institutions, according to which State Government has made amendment under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1996 vide noficiation dated 28.06.2006 and thus, in absence of guidelines/ directives of the NCTE, making distinction between qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic) and Senior Secondary (Vocational), atleast after amendment dated 28.06.2006 holding Senior Secondary (Vocational) to be ineligible, deserves rejection. On that premise, this Court was of the opinion that since NCTE alone holds competence and in absence of guidelines or directives from NCTE, decision impugned taken by respondents in denying consideration to such candidates holding Senior Secondary (Vocational) as ineligible in no manner can be said to be in consonance with existing Scheme of Rules, 1996 particularly in terms of amendment dt. 28.06.2006 and such action of the respondent deserves to be set aside and consequently this Court allowed the writ petition. In Gopal Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Panna Lal Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) and Gopal Lal Suthar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2005 (3) RDD 204 (DB), this Court held that the decision of the respondents 6 S.B.C.W. NO. 7489/2006 not to treat the petitioner as eligible and on that basis refusing appointment to him, cannot be said to be justified and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner as eligible for appointment on the post of General Physical Teacher only on the basis of qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) and consider his case for appointment. In view of the settled proposition of law by this Court, in my view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III on the basis of qualification which he said to have possessed i.e. Senior Secondary (Vocational) and it is made clear that Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification is to be treated as sufficient qualification for eligibility for appointment on the said post without insisting upon the petitioner to produce Bridge Course Qualification Certificate and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and comes in merit. The application being I.A. 13973/08 also stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp