Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Sunder Saini And Ors vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1863/2011
1. Shyam Sunder Saini, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Jai Chand
Lal, by caste Mali, resident of Sardarshahar, District Churu
(Raj.)
2. Rajesh Kumar Saini, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Sumer Mal
Saini, by caste Mali, resident of Sardarshahar, District Churu
(Raj.)
3. Purshottam Das Swami, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri
Bajrang Das Swami, by caste Swami, resident of Sardarshahar,
District Churu (Raj.)
4. Sanjay Dudi, aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Sukhram, by
caste Jat, resident of Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)
5. Nikhilesh Bika, aged 22 years, S/o Arjun Singh, B/C. Rajput,
R/o Sardarshar, District Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan , through Secretary, Animal Husbandry
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director, Directorate, Animal Husbandry
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University
Sardarshahar, Churu through its Registrar.
5. Exams Coordinator, Pashuchikitsa and Pashuvigyan
Vishavidyalaya, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanker Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
(Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Judgment 1st February, 2021 PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for following relief:
"a) The applicability of Rules of 2008 with retrospective date i.e. 1-4-2008 unconstitutional and be declared ultravires and the amended rules be made applicable to candidates who took admission after 6-8-2008.
b) The condition as mentioned in the advertisement dated 27.1.2011 (Annex.5) with regard to the approval of the course by the State Government be quashed and set aside.
c) The direction be issued to treat the petitioners eligible for the post of Live Stock Assistant without there being any formal approval from the State Govt. or in alternative the State Govt. be directed to grant approval with immediate effect.
d) The candidature of the petitioners may not be rejected on the ground that the diploma obtained by the petitioners from the respondent University has not been granted formal approval by the State Govt.
e) The petitioners may further be considered for appointment on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuance of the notification dated 27.1.2011.
f) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
g) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. It is noticed that the present writ petition preferred by the petitioners was earlier disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 15.12.15 in light of Bench decision of this Court in (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM) (3 of 8) [CW-1863/2011] D.B.C.Writ Petition No.6087/08: Balwant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 30.4.15. The appellant-State preferred a Miscellaneous Application being 54/16, for recalling the order stating that the controversy involved in Balwant Singh's case (supra) was not similar and therefore, the writ petition could not have been disposed of in light of the said decision. The said miscellaneous application was dismissed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 6.4.16. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.5.17, whereby the appellants were permitted to move the High Court again and request the High Court to look into the matter on merits. Accordingly, the State filed a fresh Miscellaneous Application being No.20/18 before this Court, which was allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 8.7.19. The order passed by the coordinate Bench disposing of the writ petition in light of decision in Balwant Singh's case (supra) was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number.
3. The facts relevant are that the State Government issued an advertisement dated 27.1.11 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Live Stock Assistant under Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 ('the Rules of 1977'). The petitioners submitted their applications, however, on information being sought, the petitioners were apprised that their applications are likely to be rejected inasmuch as, the diploma in Animal Husbandry obtained by them is not recognized by the State Government. The petitioners had obtained the diploma in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry from the Institute of Advanced (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM) (4 of 8) [CW-1863/2011] Studies in Education University, Sardarshahar, a deemed to be University, which is not recognized by the State Government.
4. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioners is that the diploma in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry awarded by the respondent University is recognized by University Grants Commission and the Central Government and therefore, the petitioners cannot be held to be ineligible. Besides, the petitioners have questioned the legality of the notification dated 6.10.08 issued by the State Government whereby in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor has amended the Rules of 1977 and prescribed the qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Live Stock as Senior Secondary or equivalent with the subjects Physics, Chemistry & Zoology or Garden Agriculture (Agriculture), Animal Husbandry & Zoology and one or two year training in Live Stock Assistant from an institute recognized by the State Government. According to the petitioners, the notification issued is made effective with retrospective effect and thus, the petitioners who were otherwise eligible stands debarred from participating in the recruitment process for the post of Live Stock Assistant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that it is well settled that the amendment in the Rules governing recruitment cannot be made effective retrospectively and thus, the notification issued by the State Government inter alia amending the eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant deserves to be declared ultra vires. Learned counsel submitted that the notification issued taking away the existing right is ex facie unconstitutional. Learned counsel submitted that (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM) (5 of 8) [CW-1863/2011] by way of impugned notification, the candidates who have acquired the certificate or diploma in Animal Husbandry during the period from 2001 to 2008 cannot be declared ineligible. Learned counsel submitted that if approval of the diploma granted by the respondent-University requires recognition then it cannot be withheld by the State Government without any reason and therefore, the State Government deserves to be directed to grant recognition to the diploma awarded by the respondent-University.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that it is the prerogative of the State Government to amend the eligibility qualification provided for recruitment to any post and nobody can claim a vested right to claim appointment on the basis of the qualification acquired by him inasmuch as, the eligibility of a candidate for recruitment to any post has to be determined on the basis of the eligibility prescribed under the Rules at the time of recruitment process undertaken. Learned AAG submitted that the qualification acquired by the petitioners from an institution not recognized by the Government cannot be considered to be valid qualification. Learned AAG submitted that there is nothing on record suggesting that the qualification acquired by the petitioners is recognized by the Central Government. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioners were not eligible inasmuch as they have not passed the Senior Secondary Examinations with the subjects as prescribed and therefore, they are not eligible to apply for the post of Live Stock Assistant. Learned AAG submitted that the recruitment process has already been completed long back and thus, at this (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM) (6 of 8) [CW-1863/2011] stage, the question of considering the petitioners' candidature does not arise.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners have acquired the alleged qualification of Certificate in Animal Husbandry in the year 2008 and the Diploma in the year 2009. The recruitment process is initiated in the year 2011 and thus, if the petitioners' qualifications of certificate and diploma in Animal Husbandry are treated to be recognized, the retrospectivity of the amendment in the Rules of 1977, does not affect them adversely in any manner whatsoever and thus, the question of the legality of the notification qua the retrospectivity is not required to be gone into by this Court in the instant petition.
9. It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the employer to lay down the qualification for recruitment to the posts in service and the Court cannot inter meddle in such matter exercising the power of judicial review. The reliance in this regard may be placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Union of India : 2007 (11) SCC 599 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand :
2008 (10) SCC 1.
10. It is also equally well settled that the candidate seeking public employment must possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the recruitment to the post under the relevant Rules at the time of recruitment and in absence of any condition prescribed in the advertisement issued in this regard, as on the last date for submission of the application form. Any person acquiring an academic/professional qualification does not make (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM) (7 of 8) [CW-1863/2011] him entitle to claim the public employment as a matter of right and thus, the contentions raised by the petitioners while challenging the qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant is devoid of any merit.
11. The petitioners are not eligible to participate in the recruitment process for yet another reason inasmuch as they are not holding the qualification of Senior Secondary with the subjects specified. It is pertinent to note that in the writ petition filed there is no specific challenge to the qualification of Senior Secondary with the subjects specified. The categorical stand taken by the respondents in this regard in the reply to the writ petition is not controverted by the petitioners by filing a counter thereto. Suffice it to say that even if the qualifications of certificate and diploma acquired by the petitioners are treated to be recognized, they are not eligible to participate in the recruitment process.
12. Coming to the question of the recognition of the qualification, suffice it to say that merely because the petitioners had acquired the qualification from a deemed to be University, the qualification cannot be treated to be recognized. Any institution imparting education in Veterinary and Animal Husbandry must have the requisite infrastructure to run the courses and must obtain the recognition in the manner as prescribed. The petition filed does not contain any details in this regard. There is nothing on record suggesting that the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Courses run by the respondent-University have been duly recognized by the Central Government or the State Government. In any case, if the qualification acquired by the petitioners is not duly recognized, they cannot claim participation in the recruitment process merely (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM) (8 of 8) [CW-1863/2011] on the ground that they have acquired the said qualification from a deemed to be University. Thus, no directions as prayed for, can be issued by this Court to the State Government to grant approval to the certificate and diploma courses in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry run by the respondent-University.
13. Indisputably, the recruitment process has already been completed and the selected candidates have been accorded appointment long back. None of the selected candidates are impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition and thus, even otherwise the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court.
14. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Vij-35/-
(Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)