Teacher Recruitment Eligibility in Rajasthan: Supreme Court Rules on Proviso to Rule 266(3)

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Others vs. Trilok Ram, addressed the issue of eligibility for teacher recruitment in Rajasthan and the interpretation of a proviso in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The judgment focused on whether candidates appearing for the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. examination could apply for teacher recruitment and if the proviso allowing them to do so remained valid after an amendment in 2011.

Background of the Case

The Rajasthan government issued an advertisement on August 11, 2013, for recruiting Teachers Grade III (Level I and II) across the state’s Zila Parishads. The advertisement stipulated that applicants must possess the required educational qualifications as of the last date for submission of applications, which was September 4, 2013.

The respondent, Trilok Ram, was pursuing the B.S.T.C. course, an essential qualification for recruitment, but had not completed it by the last date. He applied for the post based on a High Court order allowing such candidates to participate in the selection process, subject to the outcome of another pending case (SBCWP No.10845/2013). He later completed the course, and his result was declared.

Despite securing 158.41 marks—higher than the cutoff—his name was not included in the final selection list. He challenged this in the High Court, which ruled in his favor, directing the state to consider him for appointment.

Key Legal Issues Considered

Whether the proviso to Rule 266(3), which allowed candidates appearing for the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. examination to apply for recruitment, was still valid after the 2011 amendment.
Whether the Rajasthan government’s advertisement in 2013, requiring candidates to possess the qualification by the last date of application, was legally valid.
Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent based on the proviso.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Rajasthan)

The state government argued:

The 2013 advertisement was clear that candidates must have completed their B.S.T.C. qualification by the last date of application submission.
The proviso in Rule 266(3) allowing candidates to apply while appearing for their final exams had been removed after the 2011 amendment.
The respondent had not challenged the advertisement terms and had participated in the selection process despite being ineligible.
Thousands of candidates had applied and were appointed based on the qualifications being required by the last date.

Arguments by the Respondent (Trilok Ram)

The respondent countered:

The proviso to Rule 266(3) remained valid despite the 2011 amendment.
He had already appeared for the B.S.T.C. exam and later completed the course, making him eligible.
The proviso existed in previous amendments and was meant to allow broader participation in recruitment.
The High Court correctly ruled that an executive instruction (advertisement) could not override a statutory rule.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the legislative history of Rule 266(3) and its amendments, making the following key observations:

When a rule is substituted, the previous version ceases to exist, and only the newly enacted provision remains.
The 2011 amendment to Rule 266(3) introduced new qualification requirements as per the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) but did not include the earlier proviso.
The proviso allowing candidates to apply while still appearing for exams was explicitly reinserted in 2006 after a previous amendment but was not reintroduced in 2011.
The advertisement in 2013 was consistent with the amended rules, which no longer contained the proviso.
The High Court erred in assuming that the proviso remained valid after the 2011 amendment.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment, ruling:

“The candidates must possess the qualifications on the last date when applying under the advertisement. In view of our finding that the proviso had ceased to exist after substitution of Rule 266(3) by notification dated 11.5.2011, there can be no question of the advertisement being opposed to the statutory rule.”

The respondent was thus deemed ineligible for recruitment.

Implications of the Judgment

For Government Recruitments: The ruling reinforces that recruitment eligibility must be based on statutory rules, and candidates cannot claim benefits from repealed provisions.
For Teacher Appointments: The judgment clarifies that only fully qualified candidates as of the last date of application are eligible for recruitment.
For Future Amendments: If the Rajasthan government wishes to allow appearing candidates to apply, it must explicitly reintroduce the proviso through an amendment.
For High Courts: The ruling establishes that statutory provisions must be interpreted strictly, and courts should not extend benefits based on past rules that no longer exist.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that recruitment processes remain transparent and in line with statutory rules. The judgment highlights the importance of strict compliance with amended provisions and prevents candidates from claiming benefits under repealed rules. This decision strengthens legal certainty in government recruitment, ensuring that only eligible candidates are considered for appointments.

Petitioner Name: The State of Rajasthan & Others.
Respondent Name: Trilok Ram.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 12-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Rajasth vs Trilok Ram Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category