CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN .
Bench: ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,T.S. THAKUR
Case number: C.A. No.-000400-000400 / 2012
Diary number: 16801 / 2009
Advocates: AISHWARYA BHATI Vs
SURYA KANT
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2012 (arising out of)
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.19000 OF 2009)
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