RAM SINGH BARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these appeals, a challenge has been made to a common judgment dated 7.1.2009 whereby bunch of writ petitions were decided.

(2.) The matter pertains to appointment on the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2008').

(3.) Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that appointment to the post of Prabodhak has been made in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India as the Respondent-State Government made discrimination while making selection to the said post. Certain Teachers working under the educational projects of the State were given higher bonus marks for each teaching year's experience apart from the benefit of age for judging their eligibility. Elaborating the arguments, learned Counsel for Appellants submit that while the Rules of 2008 came into effect, definition of teaching experience' was provided under Section 2(k) and method of recruitment in Parts III & IV of the Rules, accordingly, advertisement was issued calling for the applications from and amongst the eligible candidates. The recruitment to the post is required to be made as per the "method of direct recruitment" provided under the Rules of 2008. The Respondents, however, failed to conduct selection as per the Rules. After calling for applications from the eligible candidates for selection on the post of Prabodhak, Respondents took an administrative decision to provide five bonus marks for each teaching year's experience to Para Teachers etc. working in educational project, with the ceiling of maximum 25 marks whereas Teachers of private recognized institutions were awarded only two bonus marks for each teaching year's experience with the ceiling of maximum 10 marks. By aforesaid, the Teachers, who gained teaching experience in the private institutions, were deprived to get equal treatment. This is more so when the advertisement is silent on that issue apart from the Rules of 2008. The Respondents, thus, acted contrary to the Rules in providing bonus marks for the purpose of selection.