- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE process for giving appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III was initiated as back as in the year 1998 by issuing notification no. 1/98. The matter came up before the Court as several writ petitions were filed and one of which decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court is Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in AIR 2002 sc 2877 which was decided in the year 2002 wherein it has been observed as under :- "the stand in the counter-affidavit (extracted supra) is that "each zone has its distinct language". If that is correct, the Zila Parishad should have mentioned in the notification that the candidates should know particular language to become eligible for consideration. We are inclined to think that reference has been made in the counter to 'language' instead of 'dialect' rather inadvertently. As seen from the previous sentence, the words 'dialect' and 'language' are used as interchangeable expressions, without perhaps understanding the distinction between the two. We, therefore, take it hat what is meant to be conveyed in the counter is that each Zone has a distinct dialect or vernacular and therefore, local candidates of the district would be in a better position to teach and interact with the students. In such a case, the State Government should have identified the zones in which vernacular dis-similarities exist and the speech and dialect vary. That could only be done on the basis of scientific study and collection of relevant data. It is nobody's case that such an exercise was done. In any case, if these differences exist zone-wise or region-wise, there could possibly be no justification for giving weightage to the candidates on the basis of residence in a district. The candidates belongs to that zone, irrespective of the fact whether they belong to x, y, or z district of the zone could very well be familiar with allegedly different dialect peculiar to that zone. The argument further breaks down, if tested from the standpoint of award of bonus marks to the rural candidates. Can it be said reasonably that candidates who have settled down in the towns will not be familiar with the dialect of that district ? Can we reasonably proceed on the assumption that rural area candidates are more familiar with the dialect of the district rather than town area candidates of the same district ? The answer to both the questions in our view cannot but be in the negative. To prefer the educated people residing in villages over those residing in towns big or small of the same district, on the mere supposition that the former (rural candidates) will be able to teach the rural students better would only amount to creating an artificial distinction having no legitimate connection to the object sought to be achieved. It would then be a case of discrimination based primarily on residence which is prescribed by Art. 16 (2 ). "
(3.) FOLLOWING the decision of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), the Single Bench of this Court (Jaipur bench) in SBCWP No. 7962/2002 (Dinesh Kumar Kumawat vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) while deciding 69 writ petitions, permitted all the aspirants obviously the petitioners to submit representation before the Director, Panchayati Raj Department who was directed to decide such representations within 30 days and that too after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court directed to pass a reasoned order.;