THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus TRILOK RAM

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 12-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
373
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
TRILOK RAM
(Civil Appeal No. 7215 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019
[K. M. JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 – Proviso to r.266(3)
– Appellant-State issued advertisement in 2013 for recruiting
Teachers Grade III (Level I and II) in the various Zila Parishads –
Applicants were to fulfil the requisite educational qualifications as
on the last date of the submission of the application form –
Respondent was undergoing the B.S.T.C. Course, an essential
qualification, however appeared on the basis of order passed by
the High Court – Thereafter, he completed his B.S.T.C. second year
course – Select list was declared– Though the respondent secured
more marks than the cut-off, his name was not found in the Select
List – Writ petition filed by the respondent relying on the proviso to
r.266(3) (which if not available, the respondent would not be eligible
on the last date for filing application, as he had admittedly not
passed the B.S.T.C. Course on that date) for quashing the list and
direction to appoint the respondent to the post of Teacher Grade III
(Level I) with all consequential benefits – Dismissed– Division Bench
allowed the writ petition holding that the proviso to r.266(3) remained
intact despite the substitution of r.266(3) by Notification dtd. 11.5.11
– On appeal, held: Proviso was introduced for the first time on
1.7.04 – By virtue of the amendment dtd. 28.6.06, the qualifications
in clause (3) of r.266 came to be changed and new qualifications
came to be introduced – Fact that the proviso had ceased to exist as
a result of the said substitution is unambiguously demonstrated by
the fact that the rule making authority issued notification dtd.
29.11.06, by again inserting the proviso to r.266(3) – Thereafter
again on 11.5.11, r.266(3) came to be substituted – Qualifications
as stipulated by National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE)
were inserted – Thus, r.266 (3) as was brought into life by the
amending Act dtd. 28.6.06 continued to hold the field till it suffered
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 373
373
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
substitution by notification dtd. 11.5.11 – Admittedly after 11.5.11,
the proviso has not been brought back to life – Notification dtd.
29.11.06 bringing the proviso back to life after the substitution of
clause (3) to r.266 in 2006 was not brought to the notice of the
High Court– Further, the circular dtd. 29.2.12, replacing the
requirement of the candidate possessing qualifications as on the
last date, stipulated in the advertisement with the provisions of the
proviso (though the proviso was not actually there), cannot be
pressed into service by the respondent as the advertisement
concerned in the present case is of the year 2013– Impugned
judgment set aside – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 – s.23 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Fourth
Amendment) Rules 2004 – Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes– Substitution of the provision –
Effect of– Held: An amendment bringing about substitution of a
provision essentially does two things, in the first place, the provision
which is substituted undergoes a repeal and at the same time,  there
is a re-enactment through the newly inserted provisions.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The proviso was introduced for the first time
on 1.7.2004 (though with variation not relevant to the enquiry) in
the rules. Rule 266 is a part of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules.
The qualifications for teachers for the category concerned with,
is undoubtedly, laid down by the National Council for Teachers
Education (NCTE).  This is done by virtue of the provisions of
Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009. After the proviso was inserted in 2004 by virtue of the
amendment carried out in Rule 266 (3) dated 28.6.2006, the
qualifications in clause (3) of Rule 266 came to be changed and
new qualifications came to be introduced through the amendment.
It purported to be a substitution of clause (3). The proviso had
been earlier inserted in clause (3) of Rule 266 by virtue of
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Fourth Amendment) Rules 2004.
Thereafter again on 11.5.2011, Rule 266(3) came to be
substituted.  Qualifications as stipulated by NCTE, were inserted.
[Paras 11, 12] [384-A-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
1.2 The proviso was intended to have a different area of
operation from the main provision whose f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.