Full Judgment
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 12.10.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1998 advertising the posts of Teacher Gr. III in Churu Distt. with all consquential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:
The petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1993 and Senior Secondary Examination (Vocational) in the year 1995 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and copies of the respective mark-sheets are marked as Annex. 1 and Annex. 2 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner did his STC Course from the Department of Education, Rajasthan in the year 1997 and a copy of the markesheet of STC is marked as Annex. 3.
The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu issued an advertisement for the appointment to the posts of Teacher Gr. III for District Churu in the year 1998 and in that advertisement, about 136 posts of Teacher Gr. III were advertised.' The petitioner being qualified applied for the said post of Teacher Gr. HI and he was placed at Serial No. 52 in the merit list and a copy of the extract of the merit list showing the position of the petitioner is marked as Annex. 4.
The further case of the petitioner is that though he qualified in the examination for the post of Teacher Gr. III, but he was not given appointment on the ground that he was possessing Senior Secondary (Vocational) and not Senior Secondary (Academic). Hence, this writ petition writ the prayer as stated above.
The main submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the ground on the. basis of which the petitioner was denied appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. JT 2001 10 SC 178 where it was held that Senior Secondary (vocational) examination is equivalent to Senior Secondary (academic) and thus, the petitioner is entitled to appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 1998.
The writ petition of the petitioner was contensted by the respondents by filing a reply, but so far as the fact that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 52 of the merit list, which was based on the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the respondent, but it was submitted by the respndents that later on, since that qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) was not found equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), therefore, another merit list was prepared and in that merit list, the name of the petitioner was not found.
However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra), the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents conceded that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) may be treated now equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic).
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
4. In this case, there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu in the year 1998 and the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 52 of the merit list as is evident from the merit list (Annex. 4) which was prepared on the basis of qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational).
5. There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner was denied appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III only on the ground that he was possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) and not Senior Secondary (Academic).
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) has held that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic).
7. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) where the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) has been held to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic), the ground on the basis of which the petitioner was denied appointment cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled to appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 3 in the year 1998 as he stood at Serial No. 52 in the merit list, which was prepared on the basis of qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the selection aforesaid pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1998 within a period of two months from today, subject to other eligibility criterion. It is however made clear that on his appointment, petitioner shall not be entitled for the emoluments of the post for the past, but he will be entitled to claim seniority over the persons who were lower in merit but have been offered appointment prior to him.
No order as to costs.