MAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking direction to the respondents to consider their case for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dated 30.10.2006 with all consequential benefits. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the claim of petitioners No.2 and 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners No.1 and 3 acquired qualification of B.Ed. From the Barkatullah University, Bhopal and in the case of Jeevaji University, Gwalior the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave certain directions to consider the said qualification for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.10.2006, therefore, the State Government is under obligation to consider the case of petitioners No.1 and 3 at par with the candidates who acquired the qualification of B.Ed. From the Jeevaji University, Gwalior because on the same analogy the candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the respondents for providing appointment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that totally false writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for claiming appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer on 30.10.2006 because the question of Barkatullah University, Bhopal was not under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but, in para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioners stated that RPSC on the basis of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided appointment to the candidates who acquired qualification from Jeevaji University, Gwalior and denied appointment to the petitioners whereas the said benefit is not extended to the petitioners. Further, it is mentioned that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12068/2011, Phool Chand Ganawa Vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court while issuing direction on 9th February, 2012 to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in pursuance of order dated 27.04.2011. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation to the RPSC along with said judgment but the RPSC has not given any heed to the applications submitted by the petitioners.

(3.) IT is also submitted that in para 7 of the writ petition, averment has been made that marks sheets were not produced before the respondents on or before 31.03.2007 because the marks sheets were issued in August 2007; but, this fact is totally false because examination for B.Ed. was itself conducted in the months of May and June 2007 which is evident from Annex. 2 (page 19 and 21).