Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THESE matters have had a chequered history, in that the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals have been decided not once but thrice and this is third round of appeals before the Division Bench. On first and second occasion, the writ petitions were allowed by the Single Bench and special appeals filed against successive judgments having been allowed, matters were remanded to the Single Bench. This time again, the writ petitions have been allowed by the Single Bench vide impugned judgment dated 04.07.2012. Aggrieved thereby, these special appeals have been preferred by the present appellants. An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the RPSC) on 03.09.2008 for recruitment to 62 posts of Physical Training Instructor Gr. II and 405 posts of Physical Training Instructor Gr. III (for short, the PTI Gr. II or Gr.III). Candidates applying for PTI Gr. II were required to indicate Post Code No. 35 in their application form, whereas candidates applying for PTI Gr.III were to indicate Post Code No. 36. The candidates, who, on the basis of their qualification, were eligible for both the posts, were required to apply for both the posts separately. Subsequently, however, a press note was issued by the RPSC on 22.09.2009 for information of all concerned that applicants, who have submitted OMR application forms pursuant to aforesaid advertisement for participating in the competitive examination to be held for PTI Gr. II and PTI Gr.III, should indicate the post Code No. 35 and Code No. 36, respectively. In the event of any error in specifying the post Code, the result of such candidate shall be cancelled.
(2.) COMBINED Competitive Examination for both the posts was held on 04.10.2009'. The RPSC issued a letter on 04.12.2009 calling upon the candidates to submit their testimonials/documents upto 04.01.2010. Soon thereafter a news item was published in the daily newspaper on 18.12.2009 that the State Government has directed the RPSC to also treat such candidates eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr.III, who possess the Diploma in Physical Education (for short, 'the D.P. Ed.') and Degree of Bachelor in Physical Education (for short, 'the B.P. Ed.') on the analogy that these are higher qualifications than the Certificate in Physical Education (for short, 'the C.P. Ed.'). In this connection, the State Government sent a letter to the Secretary of the RPSC on 06.01.2010. Result of the examination was declared on 29.10.2010. The RPSC in doing so declared all such applicants successful for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III, who held the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P. Ed.), even though they applied for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. II only and did not submit any separate OMR application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III. Aggrieved thereby, number of writ petitions were filed before this Court, mostly by those candidates who, on the strength of their qualification of C.P. Ed., applied for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III, indicating post Code No. 36. First of all, the writ petitions were allowed by the Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.05.2011, leading judgment being delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15289/2010 -Bhag Chand Verma v. RPSC & Ors., directing exclusion of such of the candidates from consideration, who did not submit their OMR application forms separately pursuant to advertisement dated 03.09.2008, either for PTI Gr. II or PTI Gr. III and have yet been selected for such posts, and quashing selection of eight candidates, who applied only for PTI Gr. III but were selected for the post of PTI Gr. II and of sixty candidates who applied only for the post of PTI Gr. II but were selected for the post of PTI Gr. III. The RPSC was directed to declare result afresh taking into consideration the candidates who applied for the respective posts separately subject to their eligibility in the order of merit and recommend their names to the State Government for taking necessary steps for their appointment. The question, whether or not the candidates possessing the qualification of B.P. Ed. making them eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. II, can also be considered eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III, was left to be examined in appropriate case in future. That judgment dated 10.05.2011 was challenged before the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 836/2011. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 17.10.2011 set aside the aforesaid judgment and remanded the matter to Single Bench requiring the parties to furnish "additional pleadings with respect to whether B.P. Ed. Course can be treated as equivalent to C.P. Ed. Course and whether skill acquired by B.P. Ed. Course is similar to one acquired by C.P. Ed. Course and the candidates possessing B.P. Ed. qualification can be permitted to claim their selection against the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade HI, particularly for primary teaching. Effect of qualification prescribed under NCTE Regulations 2001 is also required to be considered."
(3.) THE writ petitions were again allowed by the Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.02.2012, holding that the order of the State Government dated 06.01.2010 directing the RPSC to consider the candidates, who only applied for appointment against the post of PTI Gr. II, also eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III, is not sustainable. The Single Bench held that there was no material before the Court to hold that the qualification of B.P. Ed. is higher than the qualification of C.P. Ed. -because admission to B.P. Ed. Course is made after graduation whereas admission to C.P. Ed. course is made after Senior Secondary/Intermediate. Learned Single Judge in taking that view also drew support from Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kailash Chandra Harijan v. State of Rajasthan,, RLR 2006 (1) 665. Relying on the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in School) Regulations, 2001 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2001'), the Single Bench held that the Regulations of 2001 do not treat the candidates possessing the qualification of B.P. Ed., eligible for appointment on the post of PTI Gr. III, thus indicating that the NCTE has not treated these two qualifications equivalent. The writ petitions were therefore allowed directing the respondents to issue fresh select list for the post of PTI Gr.III. While concluding, however, the Single Bench also observed that after enforcement of the Regulations of 2001, it was mandatory requirement to accordingly modify/amend the relevant recruitment rules. A direction to that effect was already given by the Division Bench in Kailash Chandra Harijan, supra. The State Government was therefore directed now to modify the recruitment Rules so as to bring them in conformity with the Regulations of 2001.;