Bhutyapura, Post Inayati, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli v. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary

Jagdish Meena S/o Shri Arjun Meena, R/o Village Bhutyapura, Post Inayati, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli Raj. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To The Govt. Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

5. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner Raj. National Council For Teacher Education Through Its Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi Ii, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14373/2014 Harkesh Meena S/o Gopi Ram Meena, R/o Village Post Suroth, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education [2025:RJ-JP:12516] (2 of 6) [CW-10801/2014] Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Raj. Through Its Secretary.

4. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner Raj. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13530/2015

1. Shrichand S/o Shri Amar Singh, Kumher, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.

2. Shiv Lal S/o Shri Samanta Ram, Vill. And Post Jeevad, Tehsil Weir, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To Govt., Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Raj. Through Its Secretary

5. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner Raj. National Council For Teacher Education, Through The Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi Ii, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur-302005 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13809/2015 Sanjesh Kumar Khatik S/o Shri Nanagram Khatik, R/o Vill. Meethawas, Post Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To Govt., Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer Raj. Through [2025:RJ-JP:12516] (3 of 6) [CW-10801/2014] Its Secretary.

5. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner Raj. National Council For Teacher Education Through Its Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi Ii, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19385/2015 Madan Lal Balai S/o Mangala Ram Balai, Village Guwardi, Post Mairajanpura, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar Raj. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Raj. Through Its Secretary.

4. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R D Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC Mr. Jay Upadhyay for Mr. Kinshuk Jain (NCTE) Mr. Ashish Kumar Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 19/03/2025

1. Considering the identical factual narrative, the issue in hand and with consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petitions are adjudicated vide this common judgment; the [2025:RJ-JP:12516] (4 of 6) [CW-10801/2014] same shall be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis upon the petitions herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petitions are filed in connection with the advertisement dated 09.09.2008 issued by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Physical Training Instructors (P.T.I.) Gr.II & III. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance to the said advertisement, a revised select list dated

14.01.2013 was issued and the candidature of the petitioners was rejected, merely due to the reason that the petitioners are in possession three years course of B.P.Ed./B.P.E. which is not as per the minimum eligibility issued by the respondents for the post of PTI Gr.II.

3. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned, the petitioners have filed representations dated 27.12.2013 however, respondent- RPSC rejected the representations of the petitioners vide order dated 12.05.2014, stating that as per guidelines of State govt. and Dy. Secretary (Education department) dated 04.03.2013 the plea of the petitioners are not tenable.

4. In this background, when the matter was called for consideration in the year 2025, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon para-29.1 of order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Jubair Bhati vs. Rajasthan High Court & ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17047/2022. Learned counsel has further relied upon dictum encapsulated in Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India & ors. in Civil Appeal No.2679 of 2024, and while relying upon the same, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that if the petitioners have approached within time, [2025:RJ-JP:12516] (5 of 6) [CW-10801/2014] then irrespective of grant/non-grant of interim order, the lis in question should be considered and rights of the petitioners should be protected, as the delay is on the part of the Court or for the reasons otherwise.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has apprised this Court that qua the said post no seats are lying vacant as on date, and there is no interim order operational for keeping one seat vacant qua the petitioners. Moreover, fresh selection process is carried out for the said post, thus rendering the claim of petitioners infructuous.

6. Further, it is submitted that letter dated 04.03.2013 was issued in pursuance to the letter dated 28.03.2006 issued by NCTE, whereby, NCTE has not included BPE in the approved qualifications, therefore, candidates possessing BPE degree were not considered eligible for the post of PTI. Moreover, the said letter dated 28.03.2006 is never assailed by the aggrieved persons.

7. That the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is on distinct factual matrix and in one of the judgment which is cited, is qua recruitment on the post of Civil Judge, wherein, fact qua no vacancy and conclusion of selection process were not taken into consideration by the Court.

8. In light of the abovestated facts and circumstances, taking note of the fact that matter pertains to the Year 2014, that at the time of filing of present petitions petitioners were aged approximately 45 years, that noting is brought on record qua vacancy of seats for the said post, that the letter letter dated [2025:RJ-JP:12516] (6 of 6) [CW-10801/2014]

28.03.2006 was never challenged, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the present petitions.

9. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPAK/43, 44, 103, 104, 117 (SAMEER JAIN),J