1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.110/2013 Manoj Kumar Chahar V/s Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ors. Date of judgment ::- 29 .8.2013 PRESENT Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Arun Bhansali Mr.N.R.Choudhary for the appellant. JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Mr.Amitava Roy, CJ) On Application No.56/2013 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay The appeal is belated one and for condonation of delay, an application has been filed. The application discloses that the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2012 had been obtained on 14.1.2013 and that the same was mailed to the appellant-writ-petitioner, but due to his sister's marriage, he could not contact his learned counsel for about a month, for which delay had occurred. To say the least we are left wholly unconvinced by the explanation provided. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Be that as it may, as the issue relates back to the year 2007, we are inclined as well to examine the merits of the appeal. On Appeal No.110/2013 Being aggrieved by the judgment and order date”
23. 11.2012 rejecting his challenge to the decision of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Commission) communicated vide its letter dated 4.8.2007 cancelling his candidature for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III, the appellant-writ petitioner seeks redress. We have heard Mr.N.R.Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue any formal notice to the respondents. The pleaded case of the appellant-writ petitioner relevant for the adjudication of the issue raised in the present appeal is that after passing his Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1991 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, he joined the Indian Army in March, 1992 and thereafter, on successful completion of his training in teaching, he was awarded the Certificate of Teaching equivalent to JBT (as claimed by him) by the AEC Training College and Centre, Pachmarhi (MP), an autonomous College of Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal. The appellant-writ-petitioner has claimed that this University is recognized by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. In response to the advertisement published by the Commission for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III, Primary and Upper Primary Schools of the State under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder, the appellant-writ petitioner offered his candidature in ex-servicemen OBC category 3 alongwith requisite testimonials. He was permitted to appear in the written examination and was declared to have passed the same on 16.3.2007 holding serial no.8317 in overall merit. It was subsequent thereto that by the aforementioned communication that he was intimated that his candidature had been cancelled on the ground that the qualification of JBT held by him was not equivalent to BSTC and was also not recognized by the State Government. Further, on the last date of receipt of applications, he had not been discharged from the Army and therefore, was not qualified for the benefits available to ex-servicemen in the process. The learned Single Judge upon marshalling the pleaded facts and the documents annexed concluded that in absence of any convincing evidence cognizable in law to hold that the Certificate issued by the AEC Training College and Centre, Pachmarhi (MP) is equivalent to STC and that the State Government has recognized this Certificate, no interference is called for. Mr.Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner reiterating his pleaded stand, has urged that as the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal is one of the recognized Universities of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi and that the teaching course undertaken by him with the AEC Training College & Centre, Pachmarhi (MP) is equivalent to JBT, the Commission was grossly wrong in rejecting his candidature. The learned Single Judge having overlooked these vital aspects in the 4 proper perspective, interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for in the interest of justice, he argued. We have examined the pleaded averments and the documents appended to the writ petition more particularly the Certificate issued by the AEC Training College & Centre, Pachmarhi (MP) and the list of the Colleges recognized by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. We have perused as well the letter dated 9.12.1999 of the National Council for Teacher Education to the effect that the STC Programme being offered by the elementary teacher education institutions in the State of Rajasthan, is equivalent to JBT of Haryana. A perusal of the letter dated 4.8.2007 of the Commission reveals that one of the grounds on which the candidature of the appellant-writ petitioner was rejected was that the course undertaken by him with the AEC Training College & Centre, Pachmarhi (MP) is not equivalent to BSTC and that it is also not recognized by the State of Rajasthan. A combined reading of the aforementioned documents annexed to the writ petition and relied upon by the appellant-writ petitioner does not in our comprehension advance his case. Apart from the fact that the materials on record do not decisively authenticate that the Certificate issued by AEC Training College & Centre, Pachmarhi (MP) is equivalent to the BSTC, there is nothing either to testify that this Course or Certificate issued in connection therewith has been recognized by the State of Rajasthan. A selection process with the eligibility norms prescribed therefor has 5 to be assigned its due and distinctive status and dominion to be primarily governed by the framework stipulated therefor. No analogy from any other process unless explicitly provided for is generally permissible. In this view of the matter, we do not find any cogent or convincing reason to differ from the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge. The application and the appeal are thus dismissed. (Arun Bhansali)J.
(Amitava Roy)CJ Parmar