DAUDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was temporarily appointed as a teacher on 14 -3 -1980 by the B.D.O., Panchayat Samiti, Banner. The petitioner's services were terminated on 16 -5 -1980 and he was reappointed te?nporarily as a teacher for a period of six months or till the candidate selected by the R.P.S.C. is available which ever is earlier. On 29 -6 -1981 the B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti Banner issued an order in pursuance of the order issued by the Development Department Government of Rajasthan dated 22 -6 -1981 that those who were appointed before December, 1980 shall be allowed to continue. Since the petitioner was appointed prior to December 1980 the petitioner was allowed to continue. But meanwhile the State of Rajasthan cancelled the recognition of the Basic Teachers certificate obtained from U.P. equivalent to Basic S.T.C. of Rajasthan. This notification was issued on 5 -4 -1980. Thus, such candidates who have obtained their certificates from U.P. were not made eligible for appointment on trained teachers grade. Since the petitioner also had a certificate of Basic Teachers Certificate from U.P. therefore he was not called for interview and this writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation of recognition of U.P. Basic Teachers Certificate as well as not calling the petitioner for interview.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The recognition and non -recognition of a degree of certificate is within the domain of the State Government. It is for the State Government to decide whether the certificate issued by the U.P. Government has the necessary requisite academic standard or not so as to be treated as equivalent to Basic S.T.C. granted by the State of Rajasthan. Thus, this is purely an academic issue and if the State Government has declined to recognise the certificate issued by the U.P. Government then this Court normally does not interfere. Secondly, the petitioner has failed to show that in what respects the decision of the State Government is bad. Since the certificate has not been recognised by the State Government and the petitioner was not called for interview then no fault can be found with the order not calling the petitioner for interview. The petitioner has also not disclosed that in which year he has obtained the certificate of Basic Teachers Training Certificate from U.P. In the absence of this factual averment no relief can be granted to the petitioner.