RAJ RANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above writ petitions, the controversy involved is identical, therefore, all these cases are decided by this common order and, for the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10182/2012 are taken into consideration. As per facts narrated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10182/2012, Smt. Raj Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, the petitioner after completing her graduation in Commerce with 44.44% marks from Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer in the year 2001 acquired the qualification of post-graduation in Hindi (Arts) subject from the University of Bikaner in the year 2008. In her M.A. (Hindi) examination the petitioner obtained 58.22% marks. The petitioner's husband died, therefore, with a view to enabling herself for earning livelihood and for betterment of her children, the petitioner acquired B.Ed. degree from the University of Kashmir, Srinagar in the year 2009. After completion of B.Ed. course, the petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan TET Examination 2011, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, in which, the petitioner was declared eligible for appearing in Level I and Level II examinations.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 Zila Parishad issued advertisement on 24.02.2012 for recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III, in which, being eligible the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III under the reserved quota for the widows. In the examination, the petitioner secured 104.11 marks and was hopeful for getting appointment but the petitioner was shocked when she came across the list pasted and displayed at the notice-board of Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar on 09.09.2012, in which, her name did not find mention whereas the cut-off marks for the widow category was 104.11. Upon enquiry, it was informed that she has not obtained minimum 45% marks in her graduation examination, therefore, her name was not included in the merit-list.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner (respective counsel for petitioners in aforesaid writ petitions) vehemently 6 argued that denial of appointment on the ground of having less than 45% marks is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Sompura's case (supra) and as per notification issued by the NCTE on 29.07.2011, in which, relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks was allowed to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents not to insist upon minimum 45% marks in graduation/post graduation examination and grant relaxation up to 5% as provided in the notification dated 29.07.2011 and as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Sompura's case because vide amendment notification dated 11.05.2011, the State Government amended Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 and prescribed qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (General Education) (Level ­ I and Level ­ II), so also, for Primary and Upper Primary Teachers in Special Education (Level ­ I and Level ­ II) and provided that qualification for the post will be as laid down by the NCTE under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 from time to time. Therefore, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Sompura's case and relaxation provided under para 7 (5) and para 7 (3) of the advertisement and as per qualification laid down by the NCTE vide notification dated 29.07.2011 and not to refuse appointment on the ground of having less than 45% marks in the graduation examination; and, further, grant 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories including Widow and, after considering their candidature, if they are found entitled for appointment, then, appointment may be provided to them on the posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level ­ I and Level ­ II). Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that there is nothing in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions that they are entitled for any relaxation in the qualification because the State Government is under obligation to follow the rules and in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 necessary amendment was made and it is specifically provided that qualification laid down by the NCTE for recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III will be followed and to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Sompura's case a specific para 7(5) was added in the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 and it is specifically provided that all those candidates who took admission in the Teachers Training courses prior to issuance of the notification by the NCTE on 27.09.2011 the condition of obtaining minimum 45% marks will not be insisted upon. Therefore, although the petitioners belong to reserved class category, they cannot claim relaxation more than provided in the notification issued by the NCTE which is incorporated in the advertisement dated 24.02.2012. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the argument of the petitioner that respondents are illegally insisting upon minimum 45% marks in the graduation examination. Accordingly all these writ petitions may be dismissed.