S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/2001. Case: Nirmala Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/2001 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: B.L. Bhati, Govt. Counsel |
| Judges | Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | September 18, 2014 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Order:
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.
-
None is present on behalf of petitioner though name of Mr. K.S. Yadav, is shown in the cause list. On behalf of respondent-State, Mr. B.L. Bhati, Govt. Counsel is present.
-
Perused the record, and heard learned Govt. Counsel.
-
The petitioner, Nirmala Yadav, has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 09.01.2001 seeking following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
i). the impugned order dated 15.10.1999 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii).The respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner as Physical Teacher Grade III from the date of appointment of persons junior to the petitioner with all consequential benefits including seniority etc.
iii).Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iv).Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs. "
-
By the impugned order (Annex. P/6) dated 15.10.1999, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the post of P.T.I. Grade-II, which was advertised vide the Advertisement (Annex. P/1) whereby 16 such posts were advertised. The reason assigned in the impugned order (Annex. P6) dated 15.10.1999 issued by the Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur, for not offering the appointment to the petitioner was that for the qualification obtained by the petitioner from
Nagpur, (Maharashtra) was not recognized by the State Government, including the B.P. Ed. course. The reasons assigned vide the impugned order 15.10.1999 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- -
This Court in the case of SBCWP No. 4641/2013-Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr., decided today itself i.e. on 18.09.2014, while deciding similar controversy has held as under:-
"6. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC also submitted that the petitioner has not done the B.P. Ed. course after graduation but after passing the 12th standard examination only, and the same being a two years course, its equivalence cannot be assumed as B.A./B. Com., a 3 years' course and the same being not a prescribed qualification for PTI Grade-II and PTI Grade-III as per NCTE Regulations, 2001, therefore, in view of recent judgment of Division Bench in the case of Manoj...
To continue reading
Request your trial