Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners all having a common cause of action and are thus being decided together by this judgment.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that all the petitioners claim to have cleared the Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test (RTET) with more than 60% marks and thereby, claim eligibility for appointment as Teacher Grade -III. They joined the two years BSTC Course and claim to have cleared the same in the year 2014. An advertisement was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department in the month of August 201 3 for recruitment to the posts of Teachers Grade III Level -I in various Zila Parishads. As per Clause 7(7) of the advertisement, it was required of the applying candidates to be holding the requisite qualifications of B.Ed./BSTC by the last date fixed for submission of application form. The minimum qualifications for the post of Teacher Grade III Level I and Level II were stipulated in Clauses 7(1) and 7(2) of the advertisement. The Clauses 7(1), 7(2) and 7(7) of the advertisement being relevant for deciding the controversy are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: - It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the last date for receiving the application forms was 4.9.2013. The petitioners have set up a case that they were undergoing the Second Year of the BSTC Course at the time, when online applications were invited in terms of the advertisement. The petitioners applied for and appeared in the competitive examination, which was held on 11.10.2013. The result of the competitive test was declared in the month of January 2015. The petitioners claim to have secured well above the cut off marks in their respective categories. Accordingly, their names were published in the select list and they were invited for document verification to be conducted by the concerned Zila Parishad whereafter the posting orders were to be issued. During the verification process, the petitioners, who were duly selected, were denied appointment and were informed that they could not be permitted to join the posts as they were not holding the requisite qualification of BSTC by the last date fixed for submission of the application forms i.e. 4.9.2013 in terms of Clause 7(7) the advertisement. The petitioners submitted representations to the respondents for ventilating their grievances, but the respondents did not respond thereto. Hence, these writ petitions.
(3.) THE petitioners have set up a case in these writ petitions that in a similar selection process conducted in pursuance of an advertisement issued in the year 2012, the candidates, who were undergoing the qualifying degree courses, were permitted to appear in the competitive test and upon standing in merit, they were allowed to produce the proof of clearing the qualifying exam upto the date of declaration of the result of the competitive test. The petitioners have raised a grievance that in the questioned selection process, the said liberty of submitting the qualifying degree upto the date of declaration of the result of the competitive examination was unjustifiedly and arbitrarily curtailed by Clause 7(7) of the advertisement and a totally illegal condition was imposed that the applicant would be required to hold the qualification by the last date of submission of the application form. It is asserted that the petitioners, despite standing in merit were unjustly denied appointment in the selection process despite having acquired the requisite qualification by the time the result of the competitive test was declared. Reference is made in the writ petitions to the proviso to Rule 266(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), which as per the petitioners, provides that a person, who has appeared or is appearing in the B.Ed./BSTC/BSE/B.Ed. (Special Education) examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers (General Education/Special Education) but he shall have to submit a proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the District Establishment Committee before the declaration of the result of the competitive examination. On the strength of this proviso to Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996, it is contended that the Condition No. 7(7) of the questioned advertisement is arbitrary and contrary to the Rules and deserves to be declared ultra -vires and as a consequence, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Teachers Grade -III in the questioned selection process pursuant to their selection by ignoring the said condition, as they had acquired the requisite eligibility criterion as per the above referred Proviso to Rule 266 of the Rules of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.;