[2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1146/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10801/2014 Kamlesh Prasad Meena S/o Shri Raju Lal Meena, aged about 53 Years, R/o Village and Post Bhilapada, Tehsil Nadauti, Distt. Karauli (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Govt. 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 4. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) 5. National Council For Teachers Education through Regional Director, Northern Region Committee 4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-II LIC Building Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur.-302005 6. Shivcharan Bairwa S/o Shri Nathu Ram Bairwa, R/o Village and Post Ekat, Tehsil Sapotara, Distt. Karauli (Raj.) 7. Bharat Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Parshadi Lal, R/o Village and Post Shekhpura, Tehsil Sapotara, Distt. Karauli (Raj.) 8. Siyaram Meena S/o Shri Sukaram Meena, R/o Village And Post Phoolwada (Pepat) Tehsil Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur. 9. Jagdish Meena S/o Shri Arjun Meena, R/o Village Bhutyapura Post Inayati, Tehsil Sapotara, Distt. Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Judgment 13/05/2026 1. Matter pertains to direct recruitment on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI Grade-II) pursuant to the advertisement [2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-1146/2025] dated 09.09.2008 notified by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (RPSC) under the Rajasthan Education Suboridnate Service Rules, 1971. 2. Several candidates including appellant-writ petitioner applied and participated in the selection process, however, were not short listed in the final and revised merit list, despite scoring higher marks, hence, appellant filed one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2371/2013 and other candidates too filed separate petitions, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 12.12.2013, granting liberty to appellant and others to submit a representation before the Government of Rajasthan to reconsider the qualification of appellant as requisite or equivalence of the qualification of B.P.E. (three years’ course) and B.P.Ed. (one year diploma course) for the post in question. In furtherance thereto, appellant along with other candidates submitted a joint representation accepting that he possesses the qualification of B.P.E. (Bachelor of Physical Education), three years degree course, which should be treated as equivalent to the qualification of B.P.Ed. (one year diploma course). The representation of appellant and other candidates, was dismissed by the RPSC, vide order dated 12.05.2014, based on the letter of Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, dated 04.03.2013, pointing out that the qualification of B.P.E. is not the prescribed and requisite qualification for the post of PTI Grade-II, hence, appellant is not eligible. 3. Thereafter, appellant and other candidates, who have the qualification of B.P.E., preferred writ petitions assailing the order dated 12.05.2014. The writ petitions were admitted for hearing [2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-1146/2025] vide order dated 21.03.2017, although no interim order was passed in favour of the writ petitioners and finally, writ petitions have been dismissed vide common judgment/ final order dated 19.03.2025. 4. Appellant, by means of instant special appeal, has assailed the judgment/ final order of learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2025 qua himself. 5. Submission of counsel for appellant is that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the premise that no interim order was passed in favour of appellant and during course of writ petition, selection process pertaining to direct recruitment for the post of PTI Grade II- 2008 has over and no vacant seats are available. His submission is that appellant has approached and availed the legal remedy by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10801/2014 within time against the order dated 12.05.2014, therefore, merely for the reason that his writ petition remained pending for consideration before the Court for years together without passing any interim order, in the meantime selection process of PTI Grade II-2008 stands over, the legitimate right of consideration of petitioner for appointment, having requisite eligibility for the post of PTI Grade-II, may not be curtailed, hence, the impugned judgment/order passed by learned Single Judge be quashed and candidature of appellant be directed to be considered on merits for appointment, treating him to possess the requisite qualification for the post of PTI Grade-II. 6. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the order of learned Single Judge so also the other documents and material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-1146/2025] 7. Firstly, coming to the merits, in respect of eligibility of appellant-writ petitioner for appointment on the post of PTI Grade- II, pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.09.2008, it is noteworthy that in the advertisement itself requisite qualification for PTI Grade-II is prescribed as under:- (i) Graduate or equivalent examination with diploma in Physical Education Or Secondary with 4 years diploma in Physical Education. (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. 8. Indisputably, appellant does not possess such requisite qualification, rather possesses the qualification of three years degree course of Bachelor in Physical Education (B.P.E.). The qualification of B.P.E., for the present recruitment of PTI pursuant to advertisement dated 09.09.2008 has not been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and based on the letter of NCTE dated 28.03.2006, Government of Rajasthan, Education Department vide letter dated 04.03.2013 informed to RPSC that B.P.E. is not the prescribed and requisite qualification. Pursuant thereto, RPSC vide order dated 12.05.2014 declared that appellant was not eligible for the post in question for want of prescribed and requisite qualification of graduation with diploma course of Physical Education. 9. The contention of counsel for appellant is that against the direct recruitment-2018 for the post of PTI Grade-III, NCTE accepted the qualification of three years degree course of B.P.E., equivalent to the diploma course of B.P.Ed. and on that basis the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) [2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-1146/2025] No.152/2023 titled Bimala Kumari vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vide judgment dated 27.11.2025 allowed the appeal and directed the respondent for grant of appointment to appellant therein, treating her qualification of B.P.E. as an eligible qualification and equivalent to the prescribed qualification of B.P.Ed., therefore, appellant’s appeal also deserves to be allowed on parity. 10. We have gone to the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench in case of Bimla Kumari (supra). In that case, the direct recruitment-2018 for the post of PTI Grade III was under consideration and NCTE in reply to the writ petition, clearly admitted the equivalence of the qualification of B.P.E. with B.P.Ed., hence, based on the admission of NCTE, the Division Bench treated the qualification of B.P.E. as equivalent qualification to the prescribed qualification of B.P.Ed. and permitted to consider Ms. Bimla Kumari and other appellants for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III pursuant to the direct recruitment, 2018. As far as case in hand is concerned, appellant is claiming to consider his candidature for recruitment of PTI Grade-II pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.09.2008. In the advertisement itself, B.P.E. is not the prescribed qualification. Further, as per letter of NCTE dated 28.03.2006, B.P.E. has not been considered as a recognized qualification by NCTE. The Rules of 2011, as prevailing at the relevant point of time, too does not contain the B.P.E. as a requisite qualification for PTI Grade-II. The qualification of graduation with diploma in Physical Education as prescribed in advertisement dated 09.09.2008, stands in consonance with the Rules of 1971 so also B.P.E. was not recognized by NCTE, [2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-1146/2025] equivalent to the prescribed qualification of graduation along with B.P.Ed. Admittedly, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and as recognized by NCTE, for the appointment of direct recruitment- 2008 is not possessed by the appellant-writ petitioner. Since in the case at hand, factual scenario is different and stand of NCTE stands contrary to the stand presented by NCTE for PTI Grade-III recruitment- 2018 in case of Ms. Bimla Kumari, hence, appellant cannot be considered at par with the case of Ms. Bimla Kumari & others and the principle of parity does not apply. Hence, on that count, we are of the considered opinion that in the light of letter dated 04.03.2013 issued by Government of Rajasthan, Education Department based on the letter of NCTE dated 28.03.2006, the RPSC did not erred in rejecting the candidature of appellant for want of requisite and prescribed qualification for the post of PTI Grade-II and challenge made by the appellant-writ petitioner to the order of RPSC dated 12.05.2014, does not hold any merit, therefore, on merits, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the final outcome of the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2025 i.e. dismissal, writ petition, does not warrant interference. 11. 11. Coming to the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, it is suffice to observe that in the judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge has noted that the letter of NCTE dated 28.03.2006 appended with the letter of Government of Rajasthan dated 04.03.2013, containing recital of non-recognition of the qualification of B.P.E. for the post of PTI Grade-II, has not been assailed by the writ petitioner. To this extent, we do not find any error in the judgment impugned [2026:RJ-JP:20196-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-1146/2025] but the other reasonings recorded in the impugned judgment to dismiss the writ petition may not be countenanced because same stand contrary to the legal and latin maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, means act of Court shall not prejudice to anyone. This maxim has been given acceptance as a principle of law in various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Atma Ram Mittal vs. Ishwar Singh Punia [(1988) 4 SCC 284] would be suffice, wherein the Apex Court held that “it is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’- an act of court shall prejudice no man.” Similarly, merely due to non-grant of interim relief, ipso facto does not dis- entitle the party to get final relief, if case on merit is established by him for grant of final relief. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the final outcome of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed, though for the different reasons mentioned hereinabove. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J DEEPA-1