STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aforementioned appeals are directed against the judgment dtd. 4/4/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner Satish Kumar was allowed. Learned Single Judge by the aforesaid judgment set aside the notification dtd. 21/2/2018 whereby Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2018 were promulgated, substituting Clause (3) in Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') and consequently, also set aside the corrigendum dtd. 30/10/2017 amending earlier advertisement dtd. 11/9/2017 for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (Science- Mathematics) and as consequence thereof, selection list for appointment on 927 posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level II) (Science-Mathematics) was set aside, directing the respondents to redraw the same in consonance with the notification dtd. 29/8/2017 whereby Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (4 th Amendment) Rules, 2017 were promulgated. Writ Petition No. 19935/2018 filed by Anil Chulate and four other petitioners, also seeks to challenge the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2018 and the notification issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short 'the NCTE') dtd. 29/7/2011 and clause 9(b) of the Advertisement dtd. 31/7/2018 providing for common selection on the post of Teacher Grade-II Level-II in the subject of Science and Mathematics against 5728 vacancies of non-TSP Area. Since the issues raised in all these matters are common, they were clubbed and heard together.

(2.) Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has, at the outset, submitted that a candidate, who appears at a qualifying examination seeking appointment in terms of an advertisement/notice inviting applications for appointment, participates in the interview process and is not successful in the selection, is not entitled to challenge the advertisement or the selection process. Once having participated unsuccessfully, the candidate forfeits his rights to challenge the selection process. It is argued that the writ petition was filed at the instance of Satish Kumar who finds place at 2002 of the combined merit list. He does not find place in the merit even when separate merit list of 444 teachers in the subject of Science and 483 teachers in the subject of Mathematics is prepared. Moreover, he has subsequently secured appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-II Hindi and joined the service. Writ petition at his instance therefore ought not be entertained to defeat legitimate right of large number of selected candidates. Learned Single Judge erred in law in allowing the writ petition, which was filed without impleading selected candidates. Writ petitioner Satish Kumar along-with others earlier challenged the advertisement only to the extent of appointment in non-TSP Area whereas appointments have already been made in TSP Area based on the same eligibility criteria. Now subsequently Satish Kumar has again joined as Petitioner No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 19935/2018 filed by Anil Chulate and others, therefore, bona fides of Satish Kumar are highly suspect. The writ petition ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel argued that Sec. 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, 'the RTE Act') authorizes the Central Government to specify the qualifications for appointment, and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Schedule framed under Ss. 19 and 25 of the RTE Act sets out the norms and standards for a school. Item No. (b) of Serial No. 1 to the Schedule provides that there shall be at least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for 'Science and Mathematics' for sixth class to eighth class, apart from one teacher each for Social Studies and Languages. The criteria specified in the RTE Act thus treat Science and Mathematics as one stream. This is accepted and followed by the NCTE, which in exercise of its power under Sec. 23(1) of the RTE Act, has issued guidelines for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under the RTE Act, prescribing minimum eligibility qualifications for teachers seeking employment in schools. It is argued that the State Government, while issuing advertisement on 11/9/2017, wrongly invited applications from eligible candidates for 'Science, Mathematics'. This notification was based on an erroneous reading of the judgment in Sher Singh and Others Vs. Dinesh singh and Others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1464/2016), which dealt with the appointment of eligible teachers in the Arts stream for different languages, being compulsory. It did not touch upon the statutory provisions that the REET examination is the principal basis for determining eligibility of candidates for being appointed as teachers. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that other qualifications are only eligibility criteria for appearing at the TET, which is the basis for determining eligibility for being appointed as a teacher by maintaining national standards. The appellant-State therefore in exercise of its powers issued a corrigendum on 30/10/2017 amending the part of the advertisement clubbing Science and Mathematics in one stream for appointment of a teacher as a composite post for these subjects. This was a bona fide action on the part of the State Government, as it was bound by the directions of academic authority, namely, the NCTE, which is authorised by the Central Government as also on the principles set down under Article 258 of the Constitution of India.