Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arti Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 July, 2019
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13275/2018
1. Arti Vaishnav D/o Shri Hari Das Vaishnav, Aged About 23
Years, Arnoda, District Chittorgarh.
2. Leela Aheer D/o Shri Bhagwan Lal Aheer,, Aged About 27
Years, Village Kolpura, Tehsil Kapasan, District
Chittorgarh.
3. Punam Upadhyay D/o Shri Bhagwati Lal,, Aged About 23
Years, Village Dovani, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chittorgarh.
4. Anita D/o Shri Richpal Singh, W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar
Khichad,, Aged About 25 Years, Village Bathotha, Via
Patoda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.
5. Kavita D/o Shri Jaidayal Singh Maan, W/o Shri Vikram
Singh,, Aged About 22 Years, Ward No. 23, Village Bari Ka
Bass Bari, District Jhunjhunu.
6. Geeta Saini D/o Shri Tara Chand Saini,, Aged About 28
Years, Near Bhs, Ward No. 16, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services (Group- Iii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10159/2018
1. Priyanka Rar D/o Shri Radheshyam Rar, Aged About 25
Years, Village Kuchera, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur
2. Priyanka D/o Shri Jaskaran, Aged About 23 Years, Village
Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur
3. Manju D/o Shri Kishan, Aged About 23 Years, Village-Post
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(2 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
Gugriyali, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur
4. Harku Devi D/o Shri Girdhari Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Village Papasani, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur
5. Supriya D/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
Didwana, Tehsil And District Nagaur
6. Manju Devi D/o Shri Parsa Ram Choudhary, Aged About
22 Years, Village Bhairuda, District Riya Badi, District
Nagaur
7. Vimala Joya D/o Shri Ram Dev, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Makrana, Tehsil Nagaur
8. Geeta Sevada D/o Shri Jagga Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Village Lohrana, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur
9. Madhu Gurjar D/o Shri Nula Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Village Govindi, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagaur
10. Pinki Dayma D/o Shri Tulsi Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Bda Gaon, Tehsil Kuchaman, District Nagaur
11. Mamata D/o Shri Rampal Ujjawal, Aged About 23 Years,
Village Lunwa, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagaur
12. Neelam Kumari D/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 25 Years,
Village-Post Ramnathpura, Tehsil Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu
13. Mikkee Devi D/o Shri Lalit Sharma, Aged About 23 Years,
Village Khinwtana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
14. Seema Devi D/o Shri Nimba Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
Village Khinwtana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
15. Vinod D/o Shri Lekhu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Village-
Post Saku, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar
16. Saroj Kumari D/o Shri Bhana Ram Khyaliya, Aged About
24 Years, Village Doulatpura, Tehsil And District Sikar
17. Usha Kumari D/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 23 Years,
Village Doulatpura, Tehsil And District Sikar
18. Priyanka D/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 24 Years,
Village Doulatpura, Tehsil And District Sikar
19. Maina Kumari D/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 24
Years, Village Phaglawa, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar
20. Sunita Kumari Dhaka D/o Shri Sukhalal, Aged About 23
Years, Village Bhubha Chhota, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District
Sikar
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(3 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
21. Suman Kumari Gurjar D/o Shri Arjun Lal Gurjar, Aged
About 31 Years, W/o Shri Sumer Singh Gurjar, Ward No.
4, Sainipura, Bara Gaon, District Jhunjhunu
22. Mamta Kanwar D/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 26
Years, Ghiraniya (Bara), District Sikar
23. Kumari Indu D/o Shri Rajkaran, Aged About 28 Years,
W/o Shri Shamsher Singh, Dhosi, Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu
24. Aruna Gat D/o Shri Badri Narayan Gat, Aged About 29
Years, Jaitpura, District Churu
25. Priyanka Kumari D/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 24
Years, Ward No. 5, Bhorki, District Jhunjhunu
26. Kavita Kumari D/o Shri Chhitar Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
Doonda, Maraiyta, District Jhalawar
27. Chetna Meena D/o Shri Janki Lal, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Achrawa, Post Golana, Tehsil Khanpur, District
Jhalawar
28. Anupama Kumari D/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 23
Years, Kanikan Ki Dhani, Gudha Gorji, District Jhunjhunu
29. Priyanka Kumari D/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 27
Years, Thimau Chhoti, District Churu
30. Vasundhara Meena D/o Shri Ram Dayal Meena, Aged
About 24 Years, Near School, Sewani, District Jhalawar
31. Monika Bheel D/o Shri Dulee Chand Bheel, Aged About 26
Years, Ward No. 16, Khandiya Colony, Behind I.t.o. Office,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Jhalawar City, District Jhalawar
32. Rina Kumari Prajapat D/o Shri Kalu Ram Prajapat, Aged
About 22 Years, Prajapat Mohalla, Village Motipura, Post
Samrai, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar
33. Mamta Kumari D/o Shri Manna Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
Yadav Mohalla, Laxmipura, Durjanpura, Tehsil
Ramganjmandi, District Kota
34. Paremi Choudhary D/o Shri Mala Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 25 Years, Deluo Ka Tala, Bisarniya, District Barmer
35. Sharda Karwasara D/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About
25 Years, House No. 23, Gaon Purn, Gokhari, Tehsil
Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu
36. Kanchan Kumari Karwasara D/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, House No. 23, Gaon Purn, Gokhari, Tehsil
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(4 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu
37. Sharmila Kumari D/o Shri Mahi Pal, Aged About 25 Years,
Sari, District Jhunjhunu
38. Priyanka Kumari D/o Shri Sant Kumar, Aged About 23
Years, Village Ajeetpura, Post Nunia Gothra, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
39. Manju Kumari Mahala D/o Shri Mula Ram, Aged About 28
Years, Village-Post Parewadi, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
District Nagaur
40. Kiran Bala Garg D/o Vipin Garg, Aged About 26 Years,
Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh
41. Meena Kumari D/o Shri Buti Ram Mahala, Aged About 30
Years, W/o Shri Surendra Singh, Dhaka Ki Dhani, Village
Teetanwar, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu
42. Kiran Saini D/o Shri Ram Lal Saini, Aged About 26 Years,
Opposite Birla Higher Secondary School, Ward No. 16,
Pilani, District Jhunjhunu
43. Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Banawari Lal, Aged About 28
Years, W/o Shri Narendra Kumar, Bholaniya Ki Dhani,
Singnour, Bhorki, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu
44. Laxmi D/o Shri Birbal Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Meethwas, Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu
45. Pinki Kumari D/o Shri Baldev Kumar Bikunia, Aged About
25 Years, Gusai Jee Mandir Ke Pass, Dharmshala Beri,
Ward No. 8, Beri, District Sikar
46. Puspha Kumari D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 32
Years, Village-Post Udamandi, Tehsil Bhuwana, District
Jhunjhunu
47. Manju Kumari D/o Shri Girdhari Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Pipli, Post Kherwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District
Sikar
48. Taramani D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years,
W/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Mandasi, District Jhunjhunu
49. Bhavna Garg D/o Shri Kishan Lal Garg, Aged About 28
Years, 45, Janta Marg, Surajpole, Khatikwada, District
Udaipur
50. Manju Khokhar D/o Shri Moti Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
Nagaur, District Nagaur
51. Anisha Kumari D/o Shri Dharmpal, Aged About 24 Years,
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(5 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
Budania, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
52. Mamta Kumari D/o Shri Bhagu Ram, Aged About 23
Years, Ward No. 7, Bar Ki Dhani, Gudhagorjika, District
Jhunjhunu
53. Suchitra D/o Shri Indraj Singh, Aged About 25 Years, W/o
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Dangi, Ward No. 11, Village
Hejampura, District Jhunjhunu
54. Yogyata D/o Shri Ishvar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, W/o
Shri Ravinder Kumar, Ward No. 8, Mehara Jatoowas,
District Jhunjhunu
55. Manju Kumari D/o Shri Basesar Lal, Aged About 29 Years,
W/o Shri Vivek Kumar, Chandwa, District Jhunjhunu
56. Poonam Thalor D/o Shri Pyarelal Thalor, Aged About 29
Years, Tihawali, Fatehpur, District Sikar
57. Monika Jangid D/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Jangid, Aged
About 24 Years, Ward No. 2, Bugala, District Jhunjhunu
58. Karishma Kumari D/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 24
Years, Khatiyo Ki Dhani, Khatiyonwali, District Jhunjhunu
59. Karishma Joshi D/o Shri Laxman Joshi, Aged About 26
Years, Sundanpur, District Banswara
60. Sanju Kumari D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 30
Years, Ambedkar Nagar, Ward No. 12, Mandawa, District
Jhunjhunu
61. Sunita Jat D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Jat, Aged About 22
Years, Nahar Ke Pass, Jalampura, District Chittorgarh
62. Pooja Kumari Jaiswal D/o Shri Manohar Lal Jaiswal, Aged
About 23 Years, Kriparam Ki Kheri, Arnia Joshi, District
Chittorgarh
63. Preetika D/o Shri Surendra, Aged About 23 Years, W/o
Shri Ved Prakash, Jakhrana Kalan, Behror, District Alwar
64. Anita Kumari Meena D/o Shri Lahari Ram Meena, Aged
About 23 Years, Nayabass, Meena Mohalla, Thamawali,
Nathalwara, District Alwar
65. Mamta Kumari D/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Yadvo Ka Mohalla, Roopabas, Tehsil And District
Alwar
66. Manisha Yadav D/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About
27 Years, W/o Shri Hoshiyar Yadav, Jonaycha Kalan,
District Alwar
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(6 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
67. Sunita Khakhal D/o Shri Jawahar Mal Khakhal, Aged
About 28 Years, W/o Rakesh Kumar, Deeplana Johra Ke
Pass, Bhadwasi, District Sikar
68. Ekta Joshi D/o Shri Harish Joshi, Aged About 25 Years,
Ward No. 4, Brahman Mohalla, Kupda, District Banswara
69. Poonam D/o Shri Maha Singh, Aged About 27 Years, 19,
Majri Khola, District Alwar
70. Bachna Devi D/o Shri Pitharam, Aged About 24 Years,
Kutiyasani Kalla, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
71. Manju Choudhary D/o Shri Sharvan Ram, Aged About 26
Years, Village Nund, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services (Group-Iii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10980/2018
1. Saroj Choudhary D/o Shri Hukma Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 42 Years, W/o Shri Arvind, Behind Choudhary
Petrol Pump, Hanuman Bagh Colony, Nagaur, Distt.
Nagaur, Rajasthan
2. Ritu Malviya D/o Nand Kishore Malviya, Aged About 23
Years, W/o Sandeep Rankawat, Rankawat Tent Ke Pass,
Naya Darwaja, Nagaur, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan
3. Rina Lawaich D/o Ramkishor, Aged About 22 Years, Raro
Or Lawaecho Ka Bas, Borwa, Nagaur, Distt. Nagaur,
Rajasthan
4. Smt. Munni Devi D/o Bhanwar Lal Godara, Aged About 23
Years, W/o Mukesh, Gogaji Ka Mandir, Lawaecho Ka Bas,
Borwa, Nagaur, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan
5. Vimla Devi D/o Ramesh Kumar Sen, Aged About 29 Years,
Prem Nagar Colony, Hawai Patti Ke Pass, Nagaur, Distt.
Nagaur, Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(7 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
6. Suman D/o Poorana Ram Rewar, Aged About 26 Years,
Village Rajod, Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan
7. Mitlesh Kumari D/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 31 Years,
W/o Balwan Singh, Berashar Manjhala, Berashar Chota,
District Churu (Raj.)
8. Vimla Meghwal W/o Shri Hemant Meghwal, Aged About
32 Years, Mukam Post Ashpura, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
9. Urmila D/o Bhanwar Lal Garg, Aged About 26 Years,
Mukam Aamligarh, Tehsil/post Hamirgarh, District
Bhilwara, Raj.
10. Durga Suthar D/o Shri Satyanarayan Suthar, Aged About
24 Years, Mukam Post Jhadol (F) Distrct Udaipur,
Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services (Group-Iii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secreatariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment 11/07/2019
1. The writ petitioners claimed arbitrariness with regard to prescription of minimum eligibility condition, for recruitment of Female Health Worker (ANM).
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(8 of 11) [CW-13275/2018]
2. It is argued that for registration as a Nurse by the Rajasthan Nursing Council (RNC) qualification is essential and in order to obtain that, the concerned Indian Nursing Council Regulations stipulated that the candidate should have qualified in the Senior Secondary Examination (12th Standard Examination), and obtain registration.
3. It is pointed out that quite contrary to this stipulation, the State of Rajasthan prescribed minimum eligibility criteria under the Rules, the RNC registration with the minimum educational qualification is 10th Standard pass.
4. Learned counsel submitted that once the standard prescribing body i.e., INC prescribed a particular minimum educational qualification as the basic pre-requisite qualification for registration, the State has no choice but to alien its service rules in accordance with those standards/stipulations.
5. It is submitted that allowing those with lesser qualifications
-educational qualifications, such as, 10th Standard pass is not only contrary to the INC Regulations, but also Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the State has filed its counter affidavit; it is pointed out that INC Regulations were amended in 2013. The State also points out that in the concerned recruitment as many as 14,000 applicants are not 12th Standard qualified, but are nevertheless registered with the RNC. They otherwise fulfill the eligibility conditions for participation in the recruitment process. On the one hand, those candidates who are having 12 th standard educational qualifications are less than 1/3rd i.e., 4,000. Given these circumstances, the State of Rajasthan cannot be directed to amend the rules; even a direction by the Court to hold that the (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM) (9 of 11) [CW-13275/2018] State's policy in this regard is discriminatory would be infringing one, the realm of policy.
7. Learned counsel cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors [2019 (2) SCC 404] to submit that the State is the best judge to what social condition prevailing in its area and its policy, specially recruitment policy should not be likely interfered with in regard to the matters of recruitment and prescription of qualification.
8. This Court is of the opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioners in these proceedings cannot be justly granted. The mere fact that INC prescribed that in order to obtain registration as ANM, a candidate has to clear minimum 12th Standard or Senior Secondary School Examination as the minimum educational qualification, per-se doe not over-right the State's conscious policy to retain pre-existing edcuational qualification for the purpose of recruitment to its posts or its services. In this regard, the State's explanation that for the moment it does not wish to prescribe the higher educational eligibility condition of 12 th Standard having regard to the large number of registered ANMs, who possessed 10th Standard, which would exclude them from the choice of employment, looking to it, the Court cannot characterize it as arbitrary.
In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No.22 & 23 held as under :
"22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM) (10 of 11) [CW-13275/2018] necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a Rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.
23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific Rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned."
For the same reason and given the fact that a large number of registered ANM exists, who do not possess 12 th standard and whose chance of recruitment would be drastically curtailed even though they might be otherwise more experienced than freshly qualified registered candidates with 12th Standard qualification, also persuades this Court not to grant relief in these proceedings. (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
(11 of 11) [CW-13275/2018] The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
60to62-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 12:09:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)