- (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged rejection of her candidature by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short RPSC) for recruitment to the post of lecturer in Textile Designing. She has prayed for grant of a declaration that on the basis of qualification possessed by her, she is qualified for appointment on that post. The RPSC be directed to interview her for that post and if she is found suitable, then respondents be directed to appoint her as Lecturer Textile Designing with all consequential benefits. The petitioner passed 5 years Integrated Degree Course of Bachelor of Fine Arts with Textile Designing as one of special subject. Banaras Hindu University awarded degree to her. She thereafter passed Master of Fine Arts Course from the same University. In the year 1981 the petitioner was selected as Art Designer in Weavers Service Centre, Indore, Department of Textiles, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. She was appointed vide order dated 20.3.1981. The petitioner, however, did not join in pursuance of this appointment. In pursuance of a short advertisement issued by the Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur on 21.4.1982, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer. During the course of interview the petitioner made a request that she may be interviewed for textile designing instead of commercial arts. Her request was accepted by the Interview Committee and an endorsement to this effect was made on the interview letter dated 7.7.1982 (Annexure 12). The petitioner was interviewed for the post of lecturer in Textile Designing at Government Women Polytechnic College, Jaipur (for short 'Polytechnic College'). After the result of interview was declared the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis for a period of 4 months or till the availability of likely selected candidate. She was posted as Lecturer in Commercial Art, but was directed to work as Lecturer in Textile Designing in lieu of Head of Textile Designing Department. The petitioner protested against her designation as Lecturer in Commercial Art vide representation dated 13.8.1983. In pursuance of her appointment order dated 24.8.1982, the petitioner continued to work as Lecturer in Textile Designing. In support of this assertion, the petitioner has placed on record Annexures 14 and 15. Annexure 14 is a certificate issued by the Principle, Polytechnic College, showing that she has worked as Lecturer in Textile Designing between 28.8.1982 to 29.8.1985. Annexure 15 is an office order issued by the Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur on 30.11.1983 by which charge of the Office of the Principal was given to the petitioner. Her designation has been shown as Lecturer in Textile Designing, Polytechnic College, Jaipur and it was ordered that she will lookafter the work of Principal in addition to her own duties as Lecturer in Textile Designing. Two short term advertisements were issued by the Director Technical Education on 22.1.1983 and 20.6.1983 for temporary appointment on the post of Lecturer in Textile Designing and a person having the qualification of Bachelor of Fine Arts with special subject of textile designing was treated as eligible.
(2.) While the petitioner was still in the Government service, posts of Lecturer/Head of the Department in Textile Designing were advertised by Vanasthali Vidyapeeth a deemed university. The petitioner submitted her application for being considered for the post of Reader in Textile Designing. She was selected but was appointed as Lecturer in Textile Designing and she worked in Vanasthali Vidyapeeth between 31.8.1985 to 17.10.1987 in the UGC Grade. Thereafter, the petitioner did four months certificate course conducted by the Development Commissioner for Handlooms, Government of India, Weavers Service Centre, Delhi in the field of dyeing and printing. The petitioner thereafter worked as a creative designer with Vichitra Printing Works, New Delhi which, according to the petitioner, is renowned printing firm. The petitioner applied for the post of Reader in Textile Designing, which was advertised by the Benaras Hindu University, (For short 'BHU'). She was treated as eligible for that post and called for interview vide telegram dated 8.2.1989. She also applied for the post of Deputy Director (Design) Weavers Service Centre, New Delhi. She was called for interview vide letter dated 11.10.1990. According to the petitioner, the fact that she had been called for interview for these two posts, shows that she was qualified for these posts. In response to the petitioner's request for change of designation the Director, Technical Education, wrote letter dated 10.1.1985 to the Principal, Polytechnic College that there was no need of changing her designation. As and when the post is advertised by the RPSC, she may apply through the Directorate and her application will be forwarded with the appropriate remarks.
(3.) The RPSC issued advertisement No. 11/89-90 dated 24.7.1989 and invited applications for the posts of Lecturers in different subjects. 11 posts of Lecturer in Textile Designing were also advertised. The petitioner applied in pursuance of the said advertisement vide its letter dated 19.2.1991, RPSC informed the petitioner that she is not possessing the requisite experience. This is evident from Annexure 26. The petitioner has asserted that she personally contacted the Secretary, RPSC and tried to find out about rejection of her candidature. She was then told that the qualifications possessed by her were not covered within the eligibility qualifications. She then requested the Secretary, RPSC to let her know as to which were the equivalent qualifications in the light of the advertisement. The Secretary, RPSC told her that no such qualification list was in existence. The petitioner has asserted that on 28.2.1991 she personally requested the Secretary, RPSC to give in writing about the non-availability of the equivalents list but no such list was made available to her. The petitioner then made a representation dated 2.3.1991 to the Secretary, Technical Education Department and requested him to show what were the equivalent qualifications as prescribed by the department. The petitioner did not get any response. She thereafter served a notice of demand for justice but without any result.;