Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Santosh Kumari v. The State Of Rajasthan

Santosh Kumari v. The State Of Rajasthan

(High Court Of Rajasthan)

Civil Writ Petition No. 3966 of 2015 | 02-03-2017

Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J.The petitioner is seeking direction for considering her candidature for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) and afford her appointment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.08.2013 by granting her relaxation in the marks obtained by her in Senior Secondary Examination as per the instructions in the advertisement itself.

2. The petitioner belongs to the OBC category. She cleared her Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2008 and secured 42.46% marks and thereafter took admission in BSTC in the year 2008 and counselling for the same was held on 5.11.2008. The petitioner completed two years BSTC course in the year 2010 and also RTET test securing 76% marks. Being fully eligible, she applied against the post of Teacher Gr.III, Level I in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.8.2013. After successfully clearing the examination, the respondents declared the result of the examination and the petitioner was declared successful. She was duly called for the verification of the documents. However, her name did not find mention in the select list under the OBC female category although the cut off marks of the OBC female category was 159.66 marks and the petitioner had secured 172.84 marks. She was informed that her candidature cannot be considered as she is having only 42.46% marks in her senior secondary examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only 45% marks were required in the Senior Secondary Examination as per Condition 4(ii)) of the recruitment instructions (Annex.6). The petitioner has got 42.46% marks and in case, relaxation of 5% marks is given, she would get more than 45% marks.

3. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner is not entitled as she has secured 42.46% marks in her senior secondary examination as in clause 7(1)(a) of the recruitment notification, it is stipulated that a candidate should have 50% marks in his/her senior secondary examination although vide clause 7(5), relaxation upto 5% marks has been given to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC/PH categories. Since the petitioner has secured only 42.46% marks in her senior secondary examination, she is not entitled for appointment on the post in question even if relaxation of 5% marks is given.

4. Thus the only issue is whether the petitioner is required to have minimum of 45% marks or 50% marks in the said examination.

5. For adjudication, it would be proper to reproduce the condition No.4(ka)(ii) and 4(kha) which reads thus:-

4- d (ii) ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"V~h; v/;kid fk{kk ifj"kn~ dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-09-2007 tkjh gkssus ds ckn ijUrq vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-08-2009 ds tkjh gksus ls iwoZ fk{kd izfk{k.k ikB~;dzeksa esa izosk ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 45 izfrkr izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA

[k & jk"V~h; v/;kid fk{kk ifj"kn~ dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-11-2007 }kjk tkjh ekud ,oa ekun.Mksa ds }kjk izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid d{kk 1 ls 5 ds inksa ij U;wure 50 izfrkr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed vFkok blds led{k ,oa fnukad 27-11-2007 ls iwoZ U;wure 45 izfrkr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed vFkok blds led{k kSf{kd vgZrk fu/kkZfjr gSA

6. A perusal of the condition No.4(Ka)((ii) notified in the advertisement dated 11.08.2013 in pursuance to which, the petitioner had applied for the post in question shows that a candidate requires minimum of 45% marks in the senior secondary examination subject to the said candidate having taken admission in the Teacher Training course after 27.09.2007 and prior to 31.08.2009 whereas as per condition No.4(kha), a candidate who has applied for the post of Primary Education Teacher (Class I to V) is required to have 50% marks in the senior secondary in case he has taken the admission in BSTC prior to 2007. Admittedly, the petitioner took the admission in BSTC in the year 2008 i.e. after 27.11.2007. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner having applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I was required to have 50% marks.

7. It is therefore clear that the condition 4(ka)(ii) does not apply to those who have applied against the post of Teacher Gr.III Level I i.e. Primary Education (Class I to V). The petitioner having applied for said post was required to have 50% marks in senior secondary examination. The condition of 45% marks was applicable in case a person had taken admission in BSTC before 27.11.2007. The petitioner does not satisfy either of the conditions.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Advocate List
  • For Petitioner : Mr. Himmat Jagga, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Vikas Choudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
Eq Citations
  • LQ/RajHC/2017/587
Head Note