KALYAN SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, to allow the petitioner to continue his B.S.T.C. two years correspondence training for session 2005-07, at District Education and Training Institute Nathdwara. It is also prayed, that the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to prosecute his B.S.T.C. correspondence training, be declared illegal and invalid.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as disclosed in the writ petition is, that he passed Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, interalia, with Hindi, English and Elementary Mathematics. Then, he passed Higher Secondary Examination. Copies of the mark-sheets have been produced as Annexures 1 and 2. It is then alleged, that he was appointed as untrained teacher, vide order dt. 25.3.2003. Then, he came to be appointed as untrained contract teacher, vide order dt. 8.4.2003, under Panchayat Samiti, Rajsamand, and accordingly he joined vide Annexure-4. According to the petitioner, the Government issued an order dt. 20.5.2005, for imparting B.S.T.C. training, to all the untrained para teachers, contract teachers etc., in the session 2005- 2007. Since the petitioner was fulfilling eligibility criteria, he submitted the application form on 10.6.2005. The application form was received, and registered, and the training commenced from 17.6.2005, and continued upto 15.7.2005. However, the petitioner has not been allowed to get further training, to start from 16.8.2005, though other similarly untrained teachers were allowed. On being approached also, no reason has been disclosed, and has simply been orally informed, that he does not hold required academic qualification of Higher Secondary Examination, or Sr. Secondary Examination, and therefore, he cannot be allowed to take training. It is alleged in para-10, that two untrained teachers of Panchayat Samiti, Rani, viz. Khemraj and Patel Jaishree Bahan, who did not have requisite educational qualification, but they were allowed to take training. Likewise there are 15 more untrained teachers, not having required qualification, but they are also getting the training, however, the petitioner has been discriminated. With these facts, the above reliefs have been claimed.

(3.) A reply has been filed, and the contention raised therein is, that even according to the averments of the writ, the petitioner has been awarded supplementary in Sr. Secondary Examination, and thus he cannot be said to have passed Senior Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, and thus, he does not possess the requisite qualification, as on the last date of submission of forms, being 25.6.2005. It is then alleged, that it has wrongly been alleged that the petitioner submitted form, but it was not accepted, while as a matter of fact, the petitioner has not submitted the application form. It is also alleged, that the petitioner has taken a irrelevant plea, about a candidate having supplementary in college education, is given provisional admission on the condition of qualifying the supplementary.