VERMA, J. - (1.) VIDE judgment dated 26. 7. 2000 (annexure-4) the academic qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of Lady Shiksha Sahayogi had been prescribed as Senior Secondary/higher Secondary/equivalent with the 18 years minimum age. The application was submitted on plain paper/application giving bio-data. The selection was by the concerned Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had applied as one of the candidate. It is reiterated vide annex. 5 that the selection is to be made as per advertisement. The petitioner was selected. As per annex. 4 it has also been mentioned that if suitable candidate possessing qualification is not available in that situation even 8th pass candidate can be considered. VIDE annex. 6 further instructions have been issued on 30. 4. 2001 mentioning therein that the academic qualification would be Senior Secondary (academic) or equivalent.
(2.) THE petitioner submits that she has passed Senior Secondary vocational and had applied as per annex. 4. But now vide annex. 6 Senior Secondary (academic) has been prescribed as qualification with Hindi, English and Mathematic as compulsory subjects. THE petitioner has passed an the subjects ofhindi, Sanskrit and English. Vide orders 22. 5. 2001 (ann. 10) and 2. 4. 2001 (ann. 11) a rider has been put to the effect that those persons who have passed senior Secondary (academic) are entitled for the post of para teacher and those persons who have passed Senior Secondary vocational and have passed brige course academic they are entitled for the post of para teacher. THE petitioner is aggrieved against such action. Mr. Mathur appears on behalf of the State and submits that Senior Secondary (Academic) is prescribed qualification for the post of para teacher and Mahila Shiksha Sahayogi and the persons who have passed Senior Secondary vocational with brige course, they will above be entitled for the post. It is the contention of respondents that even though there is norule framed for recruitment of the post of Mahila Shiksha Sahayogi, but still the department is competent to change the advertised qualification, even for those candidates who have already been recruited. The counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Pragya Saxena vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (1), wherein it was held that the State was bound by the terms mentioned in the notification of advertisement. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in case of Naresh Bhansali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), wherein it was held that the qualification of eligibility as mentioned in advertisement or amended advertisement prior to last date for submission of application are binding on parties. Admittedly in the present case he advertisement was issued on 26. 8. 2000, copy of which has been attached as annex. 4. The petitioner was selected after having applied in pursuance of the advertisement. It is admitted that there are no rules framed for recruitment of para teachers. The contention of respondents cannot be accepted that even if there are no rules, the qualification once advertised and candidates selected, the qualification can be amended retrospectively. The contention of respondent is rejected.
(3.) IT has been noticed that number of writ petitions have been filed in regard to recruitment of Shiksha Sahayogi/para teachers and implied discretion has been left with the Panchayat to recruit the candidates at the spot. Even the candidates with middle pass qualification have been permitted to apply, if no other qualified candidate is available. The process of selection is still uncertain, resulting in multiple litigations by the candidates, who are not selected even though were meritorious or meritorious on other analogus grounds. IT is high time that the state if wants to continue the institution of Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala programme on permanenet basis, should have the rule of recruitment and other service conditions centralised and firm instructions should be issued, which may be made equally applicable to all candidates in State of Rajasthan. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order annex. 10 is quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post, for which she was selected. The cost is assessed as Rs, 1,000/ -. .;