NITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of the Notification dated 12.5.1992, issued by the District Education Officer, Primary Education, Dhoulpur, i.e. the respondent No. 2, inviting applications for the post of Physical Education Teacher Gr. III, the petitioner submitted his application. The respondent No. 2, vide his communication dated 19.9.92, marked Ex. 11, rejected the same application only on the ground that the petitioner is not resident of Dhoulpur District. Under such circumstances the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying that the communication dated 19.9.1992 of the respondent No. 2 be declared null and void and the said respondent be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment and give him appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade III. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing a reply to the writ petition and submitted that the communication dated 19.9.92, is in consonance with the circular issued by the Govt.

(2.) Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that if there is any circular, that is the same which is contrary to Rajasthan Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1971. This Court in its judgments in Ram Dass Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 1993 (1) WLC (Raj.) 711 and Nand Kishore Dubey Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 1994 (1) WLC (Raj.) 376 held that the circular restricting eligibility of candidates to particular district excluding others was violative of Art. 14. This Court allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and in case the petitioner is selected on the basis of merit, he should be given appointment.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a judgment of this Court passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 200 of 1993, State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Arvind Kumar Gochar and 26 ors., decided on 6.4.1994 . The point involved in this case is totally different and is not relevant to the present case. The case is fully covered by the judgments of Ram Chandra (supra) and Nand Kishore Dubey (supra).