TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the cases are that an advertisement was issued and published in Rajasthan Patrika on 8. 8. 98 inviting applications for the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr. III (Male ). The qualification for recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr. III (Male) was shown as candidate must possess certificate of Senior Secondary issued by a Board recognized by the State Government and the Secondary certificate in five subjects issued by a Board recognized by the State Government, out of which atleast 3 subjects should be mathematics, English and Hindi. In addition to this, the candidates should possess certificate in physical education. The petitioners applied for the post and found their names in the merit list prepared by respondent No. 3. In the month of Nov. 1998, petitioners found that their names have been deleted from the merit list and other persons are being offered appointment on the said post. The petitioners found that their names were deleted on the ground that they have passed their Sr. Secondary Examination in vocational course and that was not treated as course equivalent to Sr. Secondary Examination (Academic) course. It appears that equivalence of the course of Sr. Secondary Examination (Vocational) with Sr. Secondary Examination (Academic) was subject matter before this court in various litigations. It appears from one Division Bench decision of this court delivered in State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar and Anr. (1), decided on 7. 5. 1999 alongwith other matters, it is clear there are conflicting judgments on the point but by this judgment of Division Bench, it was clarified that persons possessing certificate in Vocational course cannot be held eligible for being appointed as Teacher Gr. III. The view which was taken in the earlier judgment of this court that Vocational course cannot be treated as equivalent to the certificate of Academic course was approved by the Division Bench of this court. The same controversy came before this court in Nafeez Khan and Ors. vs. State and Ors. This judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. P. Naolekar as he was than, who was also Member of the Bench which delivered the Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Kumar (supra ). The learned Single Judge while deciding SBCW Pet. No. 324/99 considered the policy decision taken by State of Rajasthan whereby a bridge course has been introduced for the candidates who came from the Vocational streams. If such candidates qualify the said Briedge course, they shall be considered possessing qualification equivalent to the qualification of Senior Secondary Academic and would be considered for appointment to the posts advertised as mentioned in advertisement issued in the year 1998- 99. In view of above policy decision, learned Single Judge directed respondents to consider the cases of petitioners on the basis of their merit and they be given appointment, if they are found more meritorious than the persons who have already been given appointment. It appears that one matter was taken up to Hon'ble Supreme Court involving the same controversy with respect to the dispute regarding equivalence of two qualification i. e. Senior Secondary (Vocational) viz a viz Sr. Secondary (Academic) course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the controversy in the case of Sunita Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. (3), in para No. 5 of the judgment observed that" The High Court also held that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) of the Board. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : " It appears to us that the High Court passed its order only to adjust equities in the case. If that is so, we fail to understand as to why the appellants before us should not be accommodated by the Government when they possess the due qualifications, as noticed by the learned Single Judge. Their cases ought to have been considered as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants before us and appropriate action be taken thereof within a period of two months on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the higher secondary examination subject to the condition that their appointments shall be treated as fresh appointments and they will not have any claim as to the seniority or other benefits. It is made clear that we have passed this order in the peculiar circumstances arising in these appeals and the same shall not be treated as a precedent. " This court had further occasion to consider the controversy in the case of Deep Chand vs. State and Ors. (4), decided on 5. 9. 2002. In this case, judgment of Sunita Sharma (supra) was considered and in view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that qualification of Senior Secondary (vocational) has been found to be equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) course and, therefore, the petitioner of that writ petition was found entitled for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of advertisement issued by respondent No. 3 in the year 1998. In the back ground of above, it is significant to mention here that petitioners alongwith one Hiralal submitted one writ petition in the year 1998 bearing SBCW Pet. No. 4390/98 but it appears that above writ petition was dismissed and, therefore, DBC Spl. Appeal No. 325/99 was preferred by the petitioners wherein counsel for the appellant submitted that after dismissal of writ petition of petitioners, State Government itself issued circulars by which directions were issued for providing appointments to those candidates who have passed the bridge course. The Judgment of learned Single Judge could not come in the way of petitioners. Before Division Bench, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if appellants will approach the competent authority by way of appropriate representation, then the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. On this assurance, the Division Bench permitted one month's time to the petitioners to approach the competent authority and competent authority was directed by the Division Bench of this court in its order dated 28. 5. 01 to decide the representation of petitioners within a period of three months. The petitioners submitted representation to the competent authority but the representation of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 19. 2. 2002 only on the ground that no such order or direction to give appointment to candidates who passed the bridge course was issued by the Director, Secondary Education.
(3.) THE petitioners aggrieved against above decision, submitted contempt petition bearing DBC Contempt Pet. No. 16/2002, that was dismissed by Division Bench on 2. 8. 2002 on the ground that since the direction of Division Bench in its order dated 28. 5. 01 was to consider the representation of petitioner and which has been complied with, therefore, no case of wilful disobedience is made out. THE Division Bench observed that if the petitioner have any grievance against the order, then they may challenge the order of rejection of candidature, therefore, the petitioners have preferred this present writ petition challenging the order dated 19. 2. 2002. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the State Government particularly the Education Department itself issued one order dated 9. 6. 1999 wherein it is specifically said that candidates who applied for post against the vacancies of 1998-99, their merit list may be prepared after obtaining necessary certificate of passing the Bridge Course Examination which is to be conducted by Rajasthan Secondary Education Board, Ajmer. Their names may be included in the merit list according to their merit. After this decision, the petitioners appeared for bridge course conducted by the Board and they passed in all the subjects. Yet another order was issued on 14. 3. 02 by the Education Department of the State Government holding that candidates who have passed the bridge course, they will be entitled for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. Despite particularly issued by Education Department itself and despite the fact that Distt. Education Officer it elf issued the direction to give appointment to the candidates against the vacancies of 1999 by following the decision given in the case of Nafees Khan (supra), the competent authority vide impugned order dated 19. 2. 2002 (Annex. 7) rejected the candidature of petitioners only on the ground that no such orders were issued by the Director (Education), Bikaner. It is also submitted that decision given by this Court in Nafees Khan's case was accepted and implemented by the State Government particularly Education Department itself by issuing direction to give appointment by following decision of this court delivered in the case of Nafees Khan, still denying the appointment to the petitioner is absolutely unjust and improper. It is also submitted that respondents are denying their own orders and circulars and also giving benefit of the same orders to some persons. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that no circular was issued by the Education Department to the existing selected candidates who applied in pursuance of advertisement of the year 1998-99. It is also submitted that circular dated 9. 6. 1999, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 5 is SBCW Pet. No. 4427/2002, has no application to the case of petitioners because this circular is applicable to the future vacancies and not to the petitioners who applied against the advertisement of year 1998-99. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted that Teacher Gr. III possessing the Secondary (vocational) qualification and who completed the bridge course were given appointment by the Panchayati Raj Department only but according to learned counsel for the respondents, neither there is decision of State Government to give appointment to the candidates possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) course plus bridge course in the Education Department. Learned counsel for the respondents heavily relies upon the Division Bench decision of this court delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors vs. Mukesh Kumar and Ors. (supra) wherein Division Bench held that two course are not equivalent. It is also submitted that petitioners did not produce any circular of the State Government before the Distt. Education Officer (Secondary), Chittorgarh which the petitioners are referring in the present writ petition. ;