Preferential Treatment In Selection Based On Present Place Of Posting Discriminatory, Violates Right To Equality: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Rajasthan Government's decision to grant bonus marks in teacher selection exam to those opting for posting in the districts in which they were currently posted in government employment was not only against the statutory rules but also violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that such a...
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Rajasthan Government's decision to grant bonus marks in teacher selection exam to those opting for posting in the districts in which they were currently posted in government employment was not only against the statutory rules but also violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that such a rule created class of un-equals amongst equals which was not justified. State could not create artificial classification which results in discrimination between two equals and similarly situated persons. It amounted to impermissible discrimination since there was no rational basis for such preferential treatment.
“The offending part of Condition No.9 of the advertisement dated 11.07.2024 has the effect of diluting merit, without in any way promoting the objective. The impugned condition No.9 of the advertisement is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions against Condition 9 in the advertisement for recruitment of teachers in which it was provided that if the candidate gave the option of posting to the district where he/she was currently posted, 10 additional bonus marks would be given to him/her for selection in the said district.
It was argued by the petitioners that there was no provision for granting bonus marks under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service for Appointment of Personnel in the English Medium Schools) Rules, 2023 (“the Rules”) and without there being any such provision, the condition was not in consonance with the Rules.
Further, it was also argued that granting of bonus marks caused distinction between equals because no particular benefit should be granted based on opting the place of posting and granting additional marks for such opting amounted to violation of Article 14 and 16.
The Court perused the entire scheme of selection under the Rules and opined that there was no indication of such a provision that allowed granting of bonus marks as per the Condition in the advertisement. The Court held that there could not be any distinction based on the choice of posting particularly when the teaching and working experience acquired by each one of the candidates was same and common.
It was highlighted that it was a settled principle that if there was a conflict between the terms and conditions of any advertisement and the Rules and Regulations of service and appointment, the provision contained under the Rules or Regulations shall prevail.
“no distinction has been made by the Rule making authority between different personnel, posted in different schools, in different districts of the State of Rajasthan… Hence, the act of granting 10 additional bonus marks to personnel of a particular district is arbitrary, wholly unjustified and contrary to the scheme of Rules of 2023. Hence, the condition No.9 of the advertisement is not sustainable in the eye of law.”
On the question of fundamental rights, the Court held that being a resident of a particular area or posted in a particular place itself could not be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation as the same was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court referred to the case of Kailash Chand Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Others in which the Apex Court dealt with the issue of granting bonus marks to the candidates of particular districts and rural areas.
The Supreme Court held that the suggestion that residence within a district or rural areas of that district could be a valid basis for classification for public employment had the overtones of parochialism and had to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16 as it ran counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation.
“residence by itself - be it be within a State region district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the State into Districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that District on a preferential basis.”
In this background, the Court held that the provision of granting bonus marks to a particular group of personnel of the district, if they opted their present place/district of posting, was violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 when tested on the anvil of Right to Equality and it created a class of un-equals amongst equals.
Accordingly, the Condition 9 of the advertisement was held to be illegal and unconstitutional and the petitions were allowed.
Title: Mohan Lal Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 339