Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yashoda Vaishnav vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 5) [CW-1872/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1872/2020
1. Yashoda Vaishnav W/o Shri Charan Das, D/o Bhagwan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Vaishanav, R/o Village And Post Buthel, Vallabh, Tehsil And District Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Sunder Nai W/o Prakash Nai, D/o Shri Tulsi Ram Nai, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 347, Valli, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Mamta Choubisa W/o Bhagwati Lal Choubisa D/o Devi Lal Choubisa, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Sbbj Bank, Bari, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. The Director Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration), Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. KS Rajpurohit, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 06/04/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged rejection of their candidature by the respondents as they did not have registration with Nursing Council.
2. Upon Court's concern regarding the joint petition filed by the three petitioners, learned counsel asserted that the facts relating (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:41:55 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-1872/2020] to all the three petitioners are exactly identical including date of submitting application form, date of applying for registration and date of issuance of the registration certificate.
3. This being the position, the joint writ petition is entertained and the facts are narrated generically.
4. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioners applied for the post of Health Worker (Female) pursuant to recruitment notice dated 18.06.2018, issued for filling up 4965 posts for Non-TSP area.
5. The petitioners submitted their application form before the last date of submitting the form which was 23.07.2018.
6. When the petitioners appeared for document verification, they produced their registration certificates which were issued by Rajasthan Nursing Council on 30.01.2019.
7. The respondents rejected their candidature for the following reason:-
"Not registered in RNC on or before 23.07.2018."
8. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have erred in rejecting petitioners' candidature observing that they did not have registration with RNC prior to 23.07.2018.
9. In this regard, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards notice dated 23.10.2019, issued by the respondents particularly para 3 thereof and argued that according to the respondents themselves, the candidates who were having valid registration certificates on the date of document verification were entitled to be considered for recruitment in question.
10. Learned counsel argued that pursuant to notice dated 27.05.2019 (Annex.34), they appeared for document verification (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:41:55 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-1872/2020] alongwith a certificate of registration with them and thus, the respondents ought to have accepted their candidature.
11. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset submitted that as per the terms of the advertisement, a candidate was required to have a valid registration certificate, even at the time of submitting application form. He invited Court's attention towards following note appended with the eligibility clause No.5 of the recruitment notification dated 18.06.2018, which reads thus :-
"uksV%& O;olkf;d ;ksX;rk ds fy;s jktzLFkku uflZx dkSafly] t;iqj }kjk tkjh iath;u dzekad fy[kuk vfuok;Z gSA iath;u ds vHkko esa iath;u laca/kh vU; dksbZ nLrkost ekU; ugh gksxkA vH;FkhZ dk jktLFkku uflZax dkSafly es iath;u HkrhZ gsrq vkosnu dh vafre frfFk rd gksuk vfuok;Z gSA"
12. He submitted that true it is, that the advertisement aforesaid required that a candidate must have registration certificate while submitting application form, but later, in light of judgment of this Court dated 08.12.2017 rendered in SBCWP No.13299/2017 (Manju Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), opportunity was granted to all those candidates, who had applied for registration prior to submitting application form and that is why condition No.3 was inserted in the notice dated 23.10.2019, which reads thus :-
"3- jktLFkku uflZax dkSafly esa iathdj.k ds laca/k esa jftLVz~kj] jktLFkku uflZax dkSafly] t;iqj ls jftLVz~s'ku lfVZfQdsV dk lR;kiu djk;k tkdj iath;u ekU; vFkok vekU; fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa ,l-ch-flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 13299@2017 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 08-12-17 ds vuqlkj vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ls iwoZ jftLVz~s'ku ds fy;s ;fn vkosnu dj fn;k x;k gS] vkSj nLrkost lR;kiu izkjEHk gksus dh frfFk rd izkIr gks x;k gS] rks ekU; fd;k tkuk gSA rn~uqlkj dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gSA "
13. Mr. Mehta further argued that such note has two conditions - a candidate who claims himself to be having requisite educational (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:41:55 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-1872/2020] qualification should not only have the registration certificate at the time of document verification, he should also have applied for registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council before submitting the application form.
14. He argued that petitioners have concededly applied for registration on 08.02.2019, way after submitting the application form and thus, they have failed to fulfill one of the conditions of the above note and hence, they are not entitled for appointment.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioners' contention is correct to the extent of having registration certificate on the date of document verification as they did possess certificate on 30.01.2019. But then, concededly, they did not apply for registration certificate till the last date of submitting application form.
16. But for the judgment of this Court in the case of Manju (supra), if the terms of the advertisement were to be reckoned, petitioners' candidatures were liable to be rejected at the threshold for not having valid registration certificates.
17. Considering the fact that issuance of registration certificate or the process of registration takes long time, this Court in the case of Manju (supra) declared the candidates, who had applied for registration by the last date of submitting application form and were issued registration certificate by the time of document verification to be eligible for appointment. But the petitioners in the present case are those, who have not even applied for registration when they submitted their application forms and their applications for registration were filed as late as on 08.02.2019. (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:41:55 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-1872/2020]
18. Holding them eligible or granting them indulgence at this stage would be contrary to terms of the advertisement on the one hand and inequitable to those candidates who did not even vie for the post as they had not applied for registration.
19. That apart, a perusal of Annex.6, Annex.19 and Annex.27 shows that petitioners have passed their Nursing course on 14 th December, 2018 much after submitting application form.
20. As an upshot of discussion aforesaid, this Court does not find any substance and force in the present writ petition, for which it is hereby dismissed.
21. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 14-Amar/-
(Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:41:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)