[2025:RJ-JP:46932] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16756/2025 Vijaylata Sharma D/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o C/o Harimohan Sharma, Plot No. 09, Tara Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Director, Primary Education And Panchayat Raj, (Primary Education), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari Ms. Apurva Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nalin G. Narayan Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 20/11/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- “i. By an appropriate, writ order or direction, the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (HI) Level-II) Science-Maths (Special Education) (Hearing Impairment) pursuant to the advertisement notification dated 16.12.2022 and the order/result dated 08.01.2025 may be quashed and set aside to [2025:RJ-JP:46932] (2 of 5) [CW-16756/2025] the extent of non-consideration of the candidature of Petitioner, albeit scoring higher merit position. ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Respondents may be directed to consider the Petitioner for appointment with all consequential benefits including actual financial benefits. iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition may be allowed in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. V.s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8140/2024 decided on 24.09.2025 (Annexure-10). iv. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Nalin G. Narayan, put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 whereas Saumil Sharma on behalf of Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 3. Office is directed to reflect name of Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC and Mr. Nalin G. Narayan in the cause list as counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that similar controversy has traveled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : Civil Appeal No(s). 8140/2024 decided on 24.09.2025 and the issue was resolved. Learned counsel has prayed that this writ petition be disposed of on same terms also. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that if ratio is applicable in the facts and circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:46932] (3 of 5) [CW-16756/2025] then they will consider the case of the petitioner but in case of deviation, they will appropriately decide the representation submitted to them by the petitioner having considered aforesaid and also on perused of judgment in case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court n case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra)has observed as under:- “10. The short issue arising for consideration is whether the qualification of the appellants, who possess a B.Ed. (General Education) along with a post-graduate professional diploma in Special Education, is equivalent to the prescribed qualification, i.e., graduation and B.Ed. (Special Education). 11. The answer to this question is simple and straightforward for the following reasons; a. It is an admitted fact that the advertisement which is issued is intended for the recruitment of Special Education Teachers. Recruitment of teachers intended for special education is governed by the RCI Act, a special statute, the regulator of which is the Rehabilitation Council of India, which has a statutory status. b. The council has already issued an order dated 20.04.2009 indicating that B.Ed. (General Education) coupled with Diploma (special education) shall be treated as an equivalent degree to B.Ed. (Special Education) i.e., the prescribed qualification in the impugned notification. c. It is also clear that the NCTE, which is the statutory body with respect to school education, has recognised the special role performed by the RCI as regards the regulatory measures needed to be taken [2025:RJ-JP:46932] (4 of 5) [CW-16756/2025] for the requirement of special educators. In this very context, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between NCTE and RCI was entered into on 08.04.2015. d. In Civil Appeal Nos. 8144-8145/2024, 8141-8143/2024 and 8497-8499/2024, we are informed that there is also a letter dated written by NCTE stating that qualifications relating to the appointment of Special Educators are as prescribed by RCI vide its circular dated 11.04.2017. 12. From the MoU, it becomes clear that NCTE has, in fact, collaborated with RCI and has entered into an agreement to ensure that, insofar as general education is concerned, the prescription of NCTE should be followed and insofar as schools for special education are concerned, the prescription of RCI should be followed. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Pritam Kumar Tak (supra) and Rajni (supra) are on the same line. 13. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned senior counsel, has also brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Rajnish Kumar Pandey v. Union of India4 which emphasises the role of RCI in the domain of special education. 14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no difficulty for the State Government in considering the case of the appellants who possess a B.Ed. (General Education) along with a one-year Post Graduate Professional Diploma in Special Education (PG PD-SE) as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the advertisement.” 7. Considering aforesaid, if there exists any vacancy, the respondents are under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days. The petitioner is directed to submit a representation within a period of 30 days to the respondents and same shall be [2025:RJ-JP:46932] (5 of 5) [CW-16756/2025] considered in accordance with ratio as referred hereinabove within a period of 30 days. 8. With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/16