Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Appeals Made by Petitioners and Gives a Clarified Vision To the Eligibility of the Post of a Language Teacher

Excerpt

An appeal was filed by the Petitioners challenging the order dated 21-08-2018 given by Learned Single Judge to exclude the candidates from the list of the appointment of language teachers if the candidates had acquired a degree as “additional” in the concerned subject. Further, the Court dismissed all the appeals made by the Petitioners as no rule specifically spoke about the eligibility of these types of candidates as language teachers. 

Facts

In the present case, the Petitioners have challenged the order given by the Learned Single Judge on 21-08-2018 to exclude the candidates from the select list for the post of a language teacher who did not have language as an optional subject in three years graduation course but had qualified the same as an additional subject by giving all the 3 papers in one year and that too after the completion of their Bachelor’s Degree. Furthermore, the candidates who had studied the optional subject within their 3-year Bachelor’s Degree were eligible for the post of language teacher. Ensuing this, Appellants (namely) Mahender Parasar and Gajanand Meena contended that the order given by the Learned Single Judge was not justified as they also possessed a qualification of B.A. (Additional) English and therefore they are eligible to get appointed for the post of a language teacher. Additionally, they asserted that they had been wrongly ejected from the selection process initiated vide Advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

Petitioner’s Arguments 

- Advertisement -

The Learned Counsel for the Appellants-Petitioners contended that for the appointment of the teacher of class VI to VIII, a candidate requires three things; first is that the candidate must have done his/her graduation with at least 50% marks, second is that the candidate must be qualified in one year bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), and the third condition is that he/she must have cleared the Rajasthan Eligibility Test (RTET) / Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET). Besides, as per Ordinance 203-I, the course of study of Bachelor of Arts (B.A) was extended to over three years, and also a candidate was required to take three optional subjects apart from the two compulsory subjects. And as per para (8) of the said ordinance, if the candidate had passed his B.A. examination without taking optional subjects in his course of study then the same condition can be fulfilled by him if he further qualifies in one of the optional subjects in the subsequent year i.e., after the completion of his degree. And a certificate would be granted for the same to the candidate. So, in the pursuance of the said ordinance, the Petitioners, in this case, had also qualified English subject by taking all the examinations of the same in the subsequent one year i.e., after the completion of his degree. So, the marks obtained by the candidate in these examinations were to be counted along with the marks obtained by them in their graduation degree. And hence, it could be said that the appellants also did their Bachelor in Education with English as a teaching subject. The Learned Counsel of the Appellants had also given references to some cases (namely State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Shaik Mahibulla Sharief; Emarata Ram Pooniya & 8 Others v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(2) WLC(Raj.) 358; Director of Education & Others v. Baboo Lal Sharma (WP(C) 5835/2010) 

Respondent’s Arguments 

The Learned Counsel of the Respondents opposed this argument of the Petitioners. He contended that the candidates who did not have language as an optional subject in three years graduation course and rather had qualified the same as an additional subject by giving all the 3 papers in one year after the completion of their Bachelor Degree were not eligible for the appointment of a language teacher. And hence, they can’t be taken at par with the candidates who had appeared for the language subject in their Bachelor’s degree itself. Furthermore, the counsel has given references to several cases (namely Annamalai University Rep. by Registrar v. Secretary. To Govt. INFN. & Tourism Dept. & Others; West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Western Region, and Others v. Madhusudan Karmakar, [2007 (113) FLR 960], Vinothan Krishnan Raman (24 of 34) v. University of Mumbai & Others, 2012 (114) BOMLR2737, Binod Vikash Manch & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Others, [2003 (4) JCR 710(Jhr)], Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others v. Sachin Gupta).

Court’s Observation 

- Advertisement -

The Court checked the eligibility criteria for the post of a teacher of the language of Class VI to Class VIII and concluded that an eligible candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject. Furthermore, the advertisements dated 11.09.2017 and 31.07.2018 had also been issued in terms of Amended Rule 266(3) of the Rules and a condition had been incorporated in the advertisements that for the teacher of language for Class VI to Class VIII, the candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding language as an optional subject. And Ordinance 203-I, Clause (8)(i), only talks about the option given to the candidates who hadn’t taken language as an optional subject during their Bachelor’s degree and not about the eligibility of these types of candidates for the post of a language teacher. 

So far as the rules are concerned, a person who qualifies the concerned language by way of the additional optional subject after qualifying Bachelor’s Degree would also be eligible to be appointed as a language teacher for Class VI to Class VIII, which is not specifically reflected in the Rules. Hence, the only requirement of the post of a language teacher is that a candidate must have studied the subject concerned as an optional subject for three years while pursuing his graduation course. So, the learned Single Judge had rightly excluded the candidates who had not studied the language subject while pursuing their degree. The court had also referred to some cases (namely, Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others v. Sachin Gupta, State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Shaik Mahibulla Sharief, Baboo Lal Sharma).

Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the appeals and ordered that the Learned Single Judge had rightly excluded the candidates. And hence the candidates who studied language as an optional subject within their Bachelor’s degree cannot be taken at par with the candidates who studied language as an “additional” optional subject after the completion of their Bachelor’s degree. And if they are taken then the purpose of education is destroyed. 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE JUDGMENT


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

1 COMMENT

  1. I am a Jaipur based advocate with 2 Years of litigation experience High Court and District Courts. My practice has not seen any substantial financial growth over the years & hence, I wish to expand my practice to the Supreme Court and train under a senior advocate to Take the AoR examination. If any of the readers here have taken the examination and can please guide me for same or know any other platform where I can seek advice.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

- Advertisement -

About the Author

Follow Us on Social Media

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Other Posts from this Author

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -