GAURAV SANKHALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner to the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III on the basis of marks obtaining in Sr. Secondary (Vocational ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as putforward by him in this writ petition is as follows: THE petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination and thereafter, he passed the Senior Secondary (Vocational) Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 1998. THEreafter, the petitioner passed Certificate Course of Physical Education Examination, 1999. THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner issued advertisement Annex. 7 dated 28. 7. 2003, which was published in the newspaper "dainik Bhaskar" on 30. 7. 2003, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III. In pursuance of the said advertisement Annex. 7, the petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III alongwith the requisite documents. THEreafter, after scrutiny of the application forms, a provisional merit list was got prepared by the respondents and was published. According to the petitioner, in the said provisional merit list, the name of the petitioner was not placed at proper place. THE further case of the petitioner is that after commencement of the recruitment process, the respondent No. 2 Director issued directions to all the District Education Officers, Secondary Education including respondent No. 3 through Circular dated 16. 8. 2003 and as per directions contained in clause (1) of circular dated 16. 8. 2003, for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III the marks obtained in compulsory subjects of vocational Course as well as marks obtained in optional subjects of Bridge Course would be taken into consideration. THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid directions contained in clause 1 of Circular dated 16. 8. 2003 on various grounds and the main case of the petitioner is that the Circular dated 16. 8. 2003 was issued by the respondent No. 2 Director on 16. 8. 2003 and prior to that, selection process for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III had already commenced in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 28. 7. 2003 (Annex. 7) and therefore, subsequent issuance of the directions through clause (1) of Circular dated 16. 8. 2003 that for recruitment to the posts of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III, merit list would be prepared taking into consideration the marks obtained in compulsory subjects of Vocational Course as well as marks obtained in optional subjects of Bridge Course, was nothing, but an arbitrary exercise on the part of the respondents and furthermore, since these directions were issued after commencement of selection process and therefore, they would not affect the selection process, which had already commenced, and thus, the action of the respondents preparing merit list on the basis of impugned directions as contained in clause (1) of Circular dated 16. 8. 2003 is illegal, unreasonable and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. THE learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 170 has held that Sr. Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that directions as contained in Circular dated 16. 8. 2003 were issued by the Director (respondent No. 2) for preparing merit list for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III and as per clause (1) of Circular dated 16. 8. 2003, it was decided that while preparing merit list, the marks obtained in compulsory subjects of Vocational Course, as well as marks obtained in optional subjects of Bridge Course would be taken into consideration and since it was a policy matter, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the directions contained in clause (1) of Circular dated 16. 8. 2003. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that the respondent No. 2 Director through Notification dated 31. 7. 2003 issued certain directions with respect to aforesaid recruitment to the posts of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III.