Chandrakala Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY,J

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 19.01.2009 passed in Special

Appeal No. 409 of 2008 of the High Court of Rajasthan.

The controversy arises out of the appellant's appointment

to the post of Teacher for primary and upper primary

schools.

The appellant was provisionally selected for

appointment to the post of Teacher. The educational

qualification required for appointment to the Level(II)

Upper Primary Middle School Section is;

(I)Senior Secondary School Certificate or intermediate or its equivalent; and

(II)Diploma or certificate in elementary

2

teachers training of duration of not less than two years OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.E. Ed.) OR Graduate with Bachelor of Education( B.Ed) or its equivalent"

After the appellant was provisionally selected, she

received a letter dated 26.09.2007 from the Rajasthan

Public Service Commission informing her that provisional

selection has been cancelled as the appellant did not

pass the Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination

after passing the Secondary Examination.

The case of the appellant is that at the time when

she passed the Secondary Examination, it was permissible

for a candidate passing the Secondary Examination to get

admission in the higher classes with a preparatory

course. The appellant thereafter completed her

graduation from the Indira Gandhi Open University. Then

the appellant got her B.Ed. Degree on a regular basis

from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer,

Rajasthan. The appellant then also got her M.A degree

from the same University. In that view of the matter,

learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the

appellant satisfies the criteria of the required

qualification for appointment to the post in question.

The case of the appellant has, however, been dismissed

both by the Single Judge and also by the Division Bench

of the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that as the

3

appellant has not passed the Senior Secondary

Examination, which is the basic qualification for the

post in question, the candidature of the appellant

cannot be considered.

We fail to appreciate the aforesaid view taken by

the High Court. We find that from the qualifications

which have been mentioned, it is made clear that the

basic qualification is Senior Secondary or Intermediate

or its equivalent. We find that the appellant on the

basis of her qualification was provisionally selected

after she had submitted her requisite testimonials.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given

a finding that the higher qualification is not the

substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or

Intermediate. In the instant case, we fail to

appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the

extent that it does not consider higher qualification as

equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior

Secondary examination even in respect of a candidate who

was provisionally selected. The word 'equivalent' must

be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression,

'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of

flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated

requirement. There has to be some difference between

what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that

after a person is provisionally selected, a certain

4

degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being

continued also comes into existence.

Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of

the view that the appellant should be considered

reasonably and the provisional appointment which was

given to her should not be cancelled. We order

accordingly.

However, we make it clear that we are passing this

order taking in our view the special facts and

circumstances of the case. We hope and expect the

respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall

make a suitable recommendation in the light of the

observation in this judgment within four weeks from

today and the State, which is also a party, will make

an appointment accordingly within four weeks thereafter.

The appeal is disposed of. No costs.

.................J (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

...................J (T.S. THAKUR) New Delhi;

Dated: JANUARY 12, 2012