Summary
A teacher-recruitment candidate lacked the required training qualification on the application closing date but relied on an earlier proviso permitting later proof. The Court held that substitution of Rule 266(3) in 2011 repealed the entire earlier clause, including that proviso, which had not been reintroduced. A relaxation issued for the 2012 recruitment did not govern the distinct 2013 advertisement. The State’s appeal was allowed.
Issues
- Whether the proviso permitting later acquisition of qualifications survived substitution of Rule 266(3).
- Whether the 2012 recruitment circular applied to the 2013 selection.
Provisions considered
- Rule 266(3), as substituted on 11 May 2011, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996Substitution replaced the entire earlier clause including its proviso; the advertisement’s closing-date requirement therefore conformed to the operative rule. (¶¶ 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23)
Held
- Substitution entails repeal of the old provision and enactment of its replacement. Despite the proviso’s distinct operational purpose, it was an integral part of the substituted clause and was not expressly saved. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18)
- The history confirmed this consequence: after substitution in 2006 the proviso had to be expressly reinserted. No corresponding reinsertion followed the 2011 substitution. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The February 2012 circular changed conditions of the 2012 advertisement only. It could not override the later 2013 advertisement requiring qualifications by the closing date. The respondent admittedly lacked the requisite qualification then. (¶¶ 2, 22, 23)
Result
The State’s appeal was allowed and the impugned Division Bench judgment directing employment benefits was set aside.