LAWS(RAJ)-2006-5-94

HARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 01, 2006
HARI PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners, by this petition, seek direction to the respondent Institute to accept the application forms of the petitioners, to grant admission to them in the two years in service BSTC Correspondence Course.

(2.) The facts alleged are, that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Sahayogi in the Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshala, in District Barmer. Subsequently the State floated the scheme to train the untrained teachers, including like the petitioners (Shiksha Sahayogi), under a self finance correspondence course, in the year 2002, and on the same pattern, issued guidelines to start correspondence course for the year 2005-2007.

(3.) Documents in regard to floating of this correspondence scheme have been produced as Annexure-1. It is alleged, that the petitioners possess the minimum qualification of Secondary School Examination, having been passed from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. It is alleged that on coming to know of the correspondence course scheme, the petitioners obtained application forms, and submitted the same duly filled in with affidavits and requisite demand drafts. On 9.6.2005 the Block Elementary Officer, Panchayat Samiti and District Education Officer, Elementary Education forwarded the same. The letter of the Blok Elemenary Officer has been produced as Annexure 5 and 6. It is then alleged, that the petitioners were selected as Para Teachers in the year 2000, and were appointed as Shiksha Sahayogis, and their services were sought to be discontinued in the year 2002, which was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 2263 and 2269 of 2002, wherein, this Court vide order dt. 12.7.2002, stayed the termination. Those writ petitions are said to be pending. It is alleged that on 25.6.2005 the petitioners submitted the forms to the respondent Institute, but the respondent no.3 orally refused to accept the form, on the ground, that they are continuing as Shiksha Sahayogis, under the interim order of this Court, and therefore, they cannot be treated eligible for correspondence course.