- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 30 -1 -1997 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give appointments to the petitioners to the post of Teacher Gr. III.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows : - Case of Petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh Shekhawat The petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh Shekhawat after doing his graduation obtained his B. Ed. degree from Chitrakut Gramodaya University, Chitrakut, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ''the University") and copy of the Provisional Certificate of B. Ed. is Annx. 1. The case of the petitioner No. I is that the mark -sheet of B.Ed. (Annx. 3) reveals that the result of the petitioner No. 1 was worked out by taking Into consideration the marks secured in theory and in the practice of teaching. So far as the University from which the petitioner No. 1 obtained his B. Ed. degree is concerned, it is University established by law and for that letter dated 11 -11 -1993 (Annx. 5) issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the Commissioner, Sagar District, Sagar may be referred to. It was further submitted by the petitioner No. 1 that Certificate Annex. 4 dated 26 -10 -1996 was issued by the University, which goes to show that the petitioner No. 1 passed examinations of B. Ed. special (blind) degree course and apart from that, he had also studied papers pertaining to general B.Ed. degree course for the Session 1993 -94. So far as the recognition of the degrees of the University in question is concerned, letter Annx. 6 dated 23 -11 -1991 may be referred to where it has been clarified by the Government of Rajasthan that it was not necessary to pass specific order for the recognition of the degree obtained from the Universities established by law. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the appointments on the post of Teacher Gr. III have been given to those persons, who possess B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondents invited applications for the post of Teacher Gr. III through advertisement No. 2/96 dated 17 -1 -1996 and in pursuance of that advertisement, he applied for the said post and he was interviewed and thereafter, vide order dated 17 -8 -1996 (Annx. 7), he was allotted Panchayat Samiti Shergarh and it was further observed in that letter Annex. 7 that genuineness of the degrees and certificates would be checked by the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee and the proceedings for giving appointments would be taken only after verification of the degrees and certificates. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee made efforts to verify whether the B. Ed. degree of the petitioner No. 1 was genuine one or not and further, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner No. 1 that the University had confirmed this fact, as the petitioner No. 1 also enquired from the University and the University has confirmed that on receipt of the letter from the respondent No. 2, they have certified that the degree obtained by the petitioner No. 1 is genuine and the University has also issued Certificate Annx. 4 referred to above in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondents have not given him appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III on the ground that the B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree is not requisite qualification for giving appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 made several representations and copies of some of them are marked as Annx. 8 to Annx. 11, but still he has not been given appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and in that reply, the genuineness of the mark -sheet of B. Ed. (Annx. 3) of the petitioner No. 1 has not been disputed, but it was submitted by the respondents that genuineness of the Certificate (Annx. 4) has not been verified and the Certificate Annx. 4 does not inspire confidence because it is not known to the respondents whether the person, who has issued the same, was authorised to issue the same or not and furthermore, the appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III was not given to the petitioner No. 1 because he was trained in teaching blind students whereas in primary schools, there is no blind student and thus, the petitioner No. 1 was not having the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. Hence, the writ petition be dismissed. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner No.1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
(3.) THE pertinent question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner No. 1, who stood at serial No. 12 in the merit list as is evident from the order Annx. 7 dated 17 -8 -1996, is entitled to the appointment of Teacher Gr.III or not.;