1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1389/1995 Rajendra Singh vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 24/3/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vinod Goyal for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to appoint him on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.II in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1995 treating him eligible for such appointment. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner after passing higher secondary examination has obtained B.P.Ed. degree from University of Amarawati. It is argued that the respondents in reply to the writ petition have not stated that petitioner has not qualified the degree out of the three institutions, which are affiliated to Amravati University. The petitioner with his rejoinder has placed on record copy of the degree to show that he was studying in degree college of physical 2 education in Amravati and thus the petitioner is having the requisite qualification for appointment. Learned counsel referred to Schedule-B to University of Rajasthan and argued that as per column 4 thereof, petitioner is having the eligibility for direct recruitment. Learned counsel also submitted that persons having the degree from the same Amravati have been appointed by the respondents. Reference was given to the case of one Jai Singh. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that according to column 4 of Schedule-B, supra even if a candidate is possessing a graduation degree, but he cannot be considered eligible if he has diploma of shorter duration. In case a candidate with secondary school certificate, he is required to possess the diploma in physical education of the duration of at least four years. The respondents in para 7 of the writ petition have specifically asserted that the petitioner has not passed four years diploma in Physical Education, whereas the petitioner in the rejoinder 3 thereof not asserted so. Learned counsel cited the judgement of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1617/1994, Brijesh Chand Sharma vs. State decided on 17.7.1995 and argued that this Court by the aforesaid judgement dismissed the similar writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the petitioner has not been able to prove the fact that the diploma which he obtained from Amravati University was of the duration of four years. In fact from material on record, it is revealed that it was a study course of three years. This controversy is squarely covered by judgement of this Court in Brijesh Chand Sharma, supra. The petitioner cannot be therefore treated as eligible. As regards the case of Jai Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents clearly states that it was a case of illegal appointment for which separate action is being taken. He in this connection produced a letter dated 14.3.2009 written by Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu to District Education 4 Officer (Law) to show that Jai Singh was wrongly given appointment. Even if it is accepted that Jai Singh was given appointment, but it may be a case of the respondents to take appropriate steps for undoing the wrong, but apparently on the basis of relevant rules, it is clear that petitioner was not eligible. This Court on the principle of equality cannot require the respondents to act contrary to rules. It is trite law that equality is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in negatively. Even otherwise, the controversy with regard to eligibility of the petitioner has been set at rest by judgement of this Court in Brijesh Chand Sharma, supra. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/