- (1.) THE aforesaid writ petition and 75 other the bunch of writ petitions shown in Schedule-A annexed to this order, involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided together.
(2.) IN SBCWP Nos. 1817/2997, 1819/2007, 1820/2007, 1911/2007, 2114/2007, 2864/2007, 2388/2007, 1899/2007 and 2635/2007, the validity of proviso 2nd to rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules of 1996" hereinafter) has been challenged and in the remaining writ petitions as shown in Schedule-A annexed to this order, the corrigendum Annx.2 dated 30-11-2006, to the extent of imposing the condition to produce B.Ed., BSTC Degrees by the applicant/candidate on the date of declaration of the result of competitive examination for the post of Teacher Grade III in primary/upper primary schools, has been challenged. All the writ petitions are being decided by this common order taking the facts of SBCWP No.1817/2007 as the leading case. Respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "RPSC" hereinafter) issued an advertisement Annx.l dated 30-10- 2006 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for written examination for the post of Primary/Upper Primary School teachers Grade III. A competitive examination for the said posts for the year 2006 was scheduled to be held in the month of February, 2007. The last date for submission of the application forms for the said posts was 16-12-2006. The advertisement Annx.l prescribed the educational qualification to the effect that a candidate must have a certificate of Senior Secondary School Examination or Intermediate or equivalent examination with Diploma or Certificate in Elementary Teachers Training of a duration of not less than two years or Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.E.D.) or Graduation with B.Ed, or equivalent thereto. A note was appended to the advertisement Annx.l to the effect that the applicant should possess the requisite educational qualification by the last date of submission of the application forms, i.e. 16-12-2006. However, subsequent thereto, the respondent RPSC issued a corrigendum No.2/2006-2007 dated 30- 11-2006 providing therein that in pursuance of the notification issued by the State Government dated 29-11-2006, the candidates who are appearing or appeared in B.Ed., BSTC, D.S.E, B.Ed. (Special Education) will be eligible to apply for the competitive examination 2006 for the posts in question. In pursuance of this corrigendum the candidates who did not possess the requisite educational qualification by 16-12-2006 were also permitted to submit the application forms and their application forms were accepted. Proviso 2nd to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 was incorporated, which provides that the person who has appeared in B.Ed./ BSTC examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teacher, but he shall have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the respondent RPSC before declaration of result of the said examination by the RPSC. However, the RPSC is going to declare the result of the said examination in which the petitioners appeared and as such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 2nd proviso to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 is ultra vires as it deprives consideration of candidature of the petitioners for want of requisite educational qualification. Hence these writ petitions. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-State as also by the respondent RPSC stating therein that for appointment on the post of teacher Grade III, i.e. primary/upper primary school teacher, the qualification has been prescribed under rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:- "266 (3).- Primary and upper primary school teacher (100% by direct recruitment.- Senior Secondary under new (10+2) scheme of Higher Secondary under old scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them be mathematics, English and Hindi with BSTC/B.Ed. (ii) BSTC/B.Ed.] Provided that for appointment of widow and divorce woman on the post of teacher, required qualification of BSTC/B.Ed., shall be relaxed, if they are competent otherwise and they submit a bond to the effect that they will obtain the qualification of BSTC/B.Ed., within a period of three years. They shall be entitled to receive leave for study to get BSTC/B.Ed. qualification soon after their appointment. Provided further that the person who has appeared in the B.Ed/B.S.T.C. Examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teacher but he shall have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission before the declaration of result of the said examination." It has further been contended that in pursuance to the Notification dated 29-11-2006 issued by the State Government, a corrigendum dated 30-11-2006 was issued by the respondent RPSC, which provides that a person who has appeared in B.Ed., BSTC examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary/upper primary school teacher, but he shall have to submit the proof of acquiring such qualification before declaration of the result of competitive examination by the RPSC and as such the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the corrigendum dated 30-11-2006 as also in pursuance of proviso 2nd to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, were required to submit the proof of their qualifying the teachers' training like B.Ed., BSTC etc. which is the minimum requirement to be eligible for the post of primary/upper primary school teacher. The 2nd proviso to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, in clear terms, provides that the person who has appeared or is appearing in B.Ed., BSTC etc. examination shall be eligible to apply and appear in the competitive examination for the post in question but he shall have to submit the proof of having acquired such educational qualification to the RPSC before declaration of the result of the competitive examination and this being a condition-precedent for consideration of candidature of the persons who applied and appeared in competitive examination in pursuance of the corrigendum as also in pursuance of the 2nd proviso to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 and therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, as the petitioners did not submit the proof of having passed the B.Ed., BSTC examination etc., as such they are not eligible to be considered for appointment on the post in question. It has further been stated that though the petitioners were not eligible to apply for the posts in question as the advertisement Annx.l dated 30-10-2006 clearly provides the requisite educational qualification on the last date of submission of the application forms i.e. 16-12-2006, but since the State Government issued the Notification dated 29-11-2006 and in pursuance thereto, the RPSC issued the corrigendum dated 30.11.2006 and thereafter the petitioners were permitted to apply and appear in the competitive examination held by the respondent RPSC, but in view of the corrigendum as also the proviso 2nd to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioners were required to submit the proof of having acquired the B.Ed., BSTC certificate before declaration of the result of competitive examination by the RPSC. It has further been stated that the respondent RPSC has declared the result of the said competitive examination on 16-3- 2007 and till declaration of the result, none of the petitioners submitted the proof of having acquired the said educational qualification of B.Ed, BSTC etc. and as such they are not entitled for any consideration in absence of the requisite qualification on the relevant date. It has further been stated that the result of the competitive examination has been declared and the merit of the selected candidates has been prepared. The respondent RPSC has filed the writ to the various writ petitions taking the similar grounds raised by the respondent-State. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in SBCWP No.1772/2007, contended that by permitting the petitioners knowing it well that on the last date of submission of the application forms for the post of primary/upper primary school teachers Grade III, the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification as advertised vide Annx.l dated 30-10-2006, which, in clear terms, provides that the candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification stated therein, which included the qualification of Diploma or Certificate in Elementary Teachers Training for a duration of not less than two years,or B.Ed, or Graduation with B.Ed., or equivalent, yet the respondents allowed the petitioners to apply for and appear in the competitive examination and, thus, the petitioners have a legitimate expectation regarding consideration of their candidature, which has been denied by respondents for want of submitting the proof of having acquired the said qualification before declaration of the result of the competitive examination by the RPSC and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the respondent RPSC should have waited for some more time so that the candidates who have been pursuing the study of the training course like BSTC/B.Ed. Can appear in examination of such degree courses and have the ultimate result of the teachers' training course. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 465; and Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) & ors. vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf & ors., (2006) 7 SCC 756.
(3.) MR. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners in SBCWP No.1869/2007, submits that at the time of calling of the application forms, the corrigendum has been issued by the respondent on 30-11-2006, which is a contingent and once the respondents have relaxed the condition of eligibility then it cannot make any order prejudice to the interest of the petitioners who appeared in the competitive examination in pursuance of the corrigendum dated 30-11-2006. He has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Kumari Sharma (MRs.) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 128; and Sri Sreeramppa vs. The Karnataka Public Service Commission & ors., JT 1991 (5) SC 81. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the very purpose of the corrigendum Annx.2 is to have meritorious candidate and for that purpose, the petitioners have been permitted to apply for and appear in the competitive examination though they did not possess the requisite qualification as advertised vide Annx.l dated 30-11-2006 and having allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination, without waiting for the result of the training course pursued by the petitioners, now the respondent-State as also the RPSC cannot turn round and ask the candidates to submit the proof of their acquiring the educational qualification of the training course by a particular date knowing it well that the petitioners, who are pursuing the study in various training courses and even the examinations therefor has not been held, therefore, they are unable to submit proof of their having acquired the qualification of B.Ed./BSTC etc. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Smt. Reeta Sharma vs. University of Rajasthan & ors., 1987 RLW 757; and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University & ors., AIR 1990 SC 1075, and contended that the equity lies in favour of the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in SBCWP Nos.1878/2007 and 1879/2007 and Mr. P.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in SBCWP No.1887/2007 and similar other writ petitions, have challenged the validity of proviso 2nd to rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 and contended that the proviso which was inserted with effect from 1- 7-2004 cannot have a retrospective effect. ;