CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed for quashing the advertisement dated 20.4.2000 as it provided for 100% reservation for female candidates and giving preference to candidates on the basis of residence for appointment of "Shiksha Sahyogi" in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshala and further to direct the respondents to advertise vacancies afresh calling applications from all eligible candidates.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that vide advertisement dated 20.4.2000, respondent No.2, the Director, Primary Education, invited applications only from female candidates for being appointed as Shiksha Sahyogi in primary and upper primary schools under the aforesaid Scheme. THE said advertisement also stipulated for preference on the basis of residence clarifying that a candidate coming from outside the Gram Panchayat shall not be appointed. Hence these petitioners challenging the advertisement itself on various grounds. Earlier this Court has dealt with the issue of appointment of teachers/Shiksha Sahyogi in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshala in Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (1), vide judgment and order dated 16.5.2000, wherein the Court explained the scope of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that the posts for which any expenditure is incurred by the public exchequer, even if it is not a public office, cannot be filled up without issuing advertisement and without holding a proper selection. While deciding the said case a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. & ors. (2), Purushottam vs. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Anr. (3), Ajit Singh (II) vs. State of Punjab & ors. (4), Indira Sawhni vs. Union of India & ors. (5), and A.P. Aggarwal vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & ors. (6), and held that every State action, in order to survive, must not be succeptible to the vice of an arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, reliance had been placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Deepak Kumar Suthar vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (7), wherein this Court has held that no preference can be given to any person on the ground of residence either for admission or for employment. In the case of Mohan Lal (supra), the learned Advocate General had appeared and various suggestions were made and accepted by the Court. Mr. Bishnoi has submitted that in the instant case, there is a complete variance and disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in Mohan Lal (supra) and, thus, the respondents should not be permitted to proceed with selection process in pursuance of the impugned advertisement. The respondents be restrained from appointing untrained teachers. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General has submitted that there is no variation from the conditions imposed by this Court in Mohan Lal (supra) and the State is fully aware of its responsibility for providing basic education. The posts had been advertised in the local newspaper having very wide circulation, i.e. "Dainik Bhaskar". Thus it cannot be said that vacancies have not been advertised. By issuing the another notification (corrigendum) which has also been published in the local newspaper on 26.8.2000 (Annx. R/2), he condition of being local resident has been withdrawn. Further the learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court towards the Government order dated 26.8.2000 (Annx.R/1) which reflects on the Government policy in respect of female children education in the State. The qualification required for appointment would be Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary or equivalent; further the applicant must possess B.S.T.C. or equivalent Certificate. In addition to this, the applicant must be aware of local conditions/customs. Minimum age of the applicant is provided as 18 years. The post has been reserved for women candidate only in case where the post of Sarpanch has been reserved for women. It also provides as who will constitute the selection committee and in case any person is aggrieved of the appointment then a representation will lie to the District Collector and in case he is not satisfied by the order passed by the District Collector, he can also approach the State Government. In view of the submissions made by learned Advocate General and the document on which he has placed reliance it cannot be said that the terms and conditions incorporated in the judgment in Mohan Lal (supra) have been violated; rather the advertisement appears to be in consonance with the aforesaid judgment.
(3.) MORESO, there can be no dispute on facts that the posts have been advertised in local news-paper having wide circulation and the condition of being a local resident has been withdrawn. So far as the issue of reservation in favour of female candidates is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that it is not a post in strict legal sense of service jurisprudence. MORESO, Article 15(3) of the Constitution empowers the State Government to frame a policy providing for such guidelines/reservation. The appointment etc. are not governed by any statutory rules, it is a project to attract the children towards basic education and in order to remove the apprehensions in the mind of orthodox parents in the rural areas as they did not send their daughters to the institutions unless there is a female teacher, such a course is necessary. Thus, Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General stated that altogether 11,847 posts of "Shiksha Sahayogi" have been filled up. Even if 20% reservation is given to the women "Shiksha Sahayogis." But in the entire State their total number comes to 898 i.e. about 7%. So it is in the aforesaid backdrop that 100% of these posts had been provided in favour of the women candidates. Shri Mehta has further submitted that State cannot in any circumstance escape from the liability of basic education of the children which has been declared to be a fundamental right by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. vs. State of Andhra & ors. Pradesh (8). MORESO, he agreed that children must be given education only by the competent trained persons. In a recent judgment in L. Muthukumar & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ors. (9), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "We are of the considered opinion that before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must receive proper and adequate training in a recognised training institute satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise the standard of education and careers of children will be jeopardised. In most civilised and advanced countries, the job of a teacher in a primary school is considered an important and crucial one and as moulding of young minds begins in primary schools, allowing ill trained teachers coming out of derecognised or unrecognised institutes or licensing them to teach children of an impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and educational institutions also play a vital role. In case like this, interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to the larger public interest." In Ram Sukh vs. State of Rajasthan (10), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case for absorption of untrained teachers on the ground that they had been continuing for long. The Court observed as under:- "We are not less sympathetical to the petitioners who are out of job but we cannot forget the welfare of those who are not before the Court. They are the tiny tots who require proper handling by well trained teachers." ;