ARUN GIRI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Although diverse reliefs have been claimed in these petitions, but, at the time of argument learned counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, stated that he would confine the challenge in these petitions to Rule 6 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, as inserted by the amendment dated 24.4.2008 to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2005. The said Rule reads thus : -

(2.) According to the petitioners, the requirement of appearing in the eligibility examination to be conducted periodically by the State Authorities is not only contrary to the stated policy of the Central Government formulated in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the guidelines framed thereunder, but, also preposterous as there can be no requirement of reappearing in eligibility examination once the candidate has passed the same. Inasmuch as, the candidates who have succeeded in the eligibility examination as per extant norms, are entitled to be appointed as teachers across the State subject to participating in the interview process to be conducted at the local school level. Besides, the eligibility examination having being conducted in the year 2005 and again in the year 2008 in which the petitioners had qualified, there was no reason for the petitioners to once again appear in the similar examination in the year 2011. Moreover, the Authority cannot frequently conduct such examination. The respondents on the other hand, contend that Rule 6 was necessitated in the year 2008 because of the change of qualification norms introduced during the same time by amendment of 2008. In that, sub Rule 5 was inserted in Rule 6 providing for higher benchmark of percentage for the concerned Degree/Diploma, for being appointed against the post of Grade I, II or III, as the case may be. Similarly, coming into force of the Act of 2009 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, which provide higher benchmark, it became imperative for the State to carryout corresponding amendment in the Rules framed under the Act of 1993. Accordingly, amendment to the Rules was brought into force in the year 2011 as a result of which it became essential to conduct fresh eligibility examination. It is further submitted that even guidelines framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2009 mandate conducting of periodical eligibility examination for which reason the argument of the petitioners that frequent eligibility examination cannot be permitted will have to be turned down in absence of challenge to the guidelines framed by the Central Government

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions, we would first refer to the amended sub Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2005. It provides for conducting eligibility examination for the employment of Samvida Shala Shikshak. That has been conducted by the Agency prescribed by the Government. The term of validity of the examination has been specified as two years after declaration of result or next eligibility examination to be held, whichever is earlier. The question is : whether this provision opposes or repugnant to the provisions of the Central Legislation or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder or for that matter guidelines framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 23 (1) of the said Act. The tenure of validity of eligibility examination has been specified in guidelines No.11. The said guidelines reads thus : -