SMT. SARITA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions relates to the question of entitlement of the candidates to be appointed as Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers, appointments to which posts is being done under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, read with Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, hereinafter called as "the Rules". In this bunch, different writ petitions have different facts, like someone having acquired particular qualification from particular University, or from particular Board, and the question raised is regarding its recognition, or equivalence, while in some cases the question about the candidate not having particular subjects in the qualifying examinations, or the candidate having the subject but having failed therein, though having passed in the overall examination, and so on. Likewise the grounds of challenge that have been raised in different writ petitions, are also in varying language. However, all the writ petitions involve a common question of law, which will decide the fate of all these writ petitions, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The common question involved in all these writ petitions, is about validity of Rule 266(3) of the Rules. According to which, for eligibility, the candidate must possess minimum qualification of Senior Secondary under new (10+2) scheme, or Higher Secondary under old scheme, from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent, and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent, with five subjects, three of them shall be Mathematics, English and Hindi. The other qualification requirements are not relevant for the present controversy; therefore, I need not go into them. The precise controversy, being the central controversy, in all these writ petitions, in other words is, as to whether the respondents can insist, on the candidate to be required to possess the Secondary School Certificate, whether from Rajasthan Board or other equivalent, but then, the candidate is required to have been passed, with at least three subjects, being Mathematics, English and Hindi. In yet other words, as to whether the provisions of Rule 266(3), requiring the candidate to have obtained qualification, at least with three subjects Mathematics, English, and Hindi, is valid, or not, and whether, the candidate not having either or more of the three subjects, are entitled to claim to be eligible for appointment.

(3.) I need not go into the details of the facts of these writ petitions, as in all these matters; all the petitioners are the candidates, who do not possess the qualification of Secondary School Certificate, with all the three subjects, being Hindi, English and Mathematics. In some cases some candidates have two subjects, or someone have one subject, but then none of them have three subjects, while someone, though having three subjects, have failed in one of the subjects, though he has otherwise passed the overall examination. This much narration of facts is sufficient, for the purpose of deciding the present controversy.