Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonam & Ors vs State & Ors on 14 December, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9189 / 2015
1. Poonam daughter of Shri Phool Singh, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Village Thimau Chhoti, Post Norangpura, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu.
2. Manesh daughter of Shri Mahabir Singh, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Village Sulkhaniya Chhota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Churu.
3. Updesh Kumari daughter of Shri Amar Pal Ji, aged about 28
years, Resident of VPO Nawa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
4. Savita Kumari daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar, aged about 25
years, Resident of Adarsh Colony, Ward No.22, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
5. Darshana Kumari daughter of Shri Ramphal, aged about 27
years, resident of VPO Dulaniya, Tehsil Surajgarh. District
Jhunjhunu.
6. Anita daughter of Shri Sajjan Kumar, aged about 28 years,
Resident of Village Sheosinghpura, Post Dulaniya, Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Jhunjhunu.
7. Mamta daughter of Shri Dayanand, aged about 25 years,
Resident of Village Kakoda, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Jhunjhunu.
8. Sarita Kumari daughter of Shri Dolat Ram, aged about 24
years, Resident of Village Banjroli, Post Badsariya Ka Bas, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
9. Rajbala daughter of Shri Randheer Singh, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Village Bhapar, Post Kajara, Tehsil Sujangarh, District
Jhunjhunu.
10. Sunita Kumari daughter of Shri Hawa Singh, aged about 32
years, Resident of Village Palota, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government,
Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Additional Director (Admn.), Department of Medical and Health,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, B-39, Sardar Patel Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(2 of 8)
[ CW-9189/2015]
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3726 / 2015
Manju Shyoran & Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3917 / 2015
Vimla Vishnoi & Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3921 / 2015
Aruna Choudhary & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. & Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4042 / 2015
Mohini Devi & Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. & Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4122 / 2015
Raj Bala & Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
(3 of 8)
[ CW-9189/2015]
State & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4206 / 2015
Sunita Jakhar & Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4626 / 2015
Raju Devi Koted & Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 408 / 2016
Suman Kumari & Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1713 / 2016
Geeta Kumari Kharadi
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors.
----Respondent
(4 of 8)
[ CW-9189/2015]
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra, Mr. Shreekant Verma, Mr.
R.J. Punia, Mr. N.K. Patel, Mr. K.R. Saharan,
Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. S.K. Poonia & Mr. A.A.
Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG assisted by
Mr. Rishabh Tayal
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 14/12/2017
1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9189/2015:
"I. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners and appoint on the post of Health Worker (Female), if they are found in merit.
II. Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to treat the qualification of 'Adeeb' equivalent to Board of Secondary Examination, Rajasthan, Ajmer. III. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. IV. Costs of the writ petition may kindlyb be awarded to the petitioners."
2. The matter pertains to the post of Health Worker (Female) for which the recruitment was held by the respondents vide advertisement dated 26.02.2013 and while the required educational qualification was Secondary, the dispute arose as the (5 of 8) [ CW-9189/2015] petitioners who were having the qualification of 'Adeeb' obtained from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh were claiming equivalence to the Secondary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have shown the document whereby the Board of Secondary Education has given equivalence to the 'Adeeb' qualification equivalent to Secondary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown the judgment of Syeed Ahmad Vs. Secretary, Ministry of of Health & Family Welfare and others. reported in [(1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 529], whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the appointment on the post of Phamacist at considered 'Adeeb' equivalent to Secondary on account of Office Memorandum dated 26.08.1978 whereby the Government of India has recognized the State qualification to be equivalent to Secondary.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have further relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Kumhari Pintoo Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1487/2015 decided on 16.12.2015.
6. Reliance has also been placed in the matter of State of Rajathan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum reported in [WLC (Raj.) 2006(2) 596]. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"17. Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is an Institution which is allegedly parting Urdu Education. The respondent- petitioners have not shwon us any sanction of law which had authorized this Institution to function as an Institution teaching Urdu and issuing (6 of 8) [ CW-9189/2015] Certificates and Degrees. The recognition of a Certificate or Degree being a valid qualification for an appointment is that the Institution issuing it should have legal sanction behind it. It may be either under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or the University Grants Commission. None of these three authorities have issued any sanction in favour of the Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh. Had it been there, the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent would have placed it before this Court.
18. The best case of the petitioner-respondent before us is that the qualifiaction was recognized by the State Government to be equivalent as shown in the letter dated 3rd February, 1965, quoted in the writ petition. Firstly a Division Bench of this Court has not given credence to this Notification because the original Notification had not been placed either before us or before the Division Bench deciding the case of Jalaludin Silawat (supra). In any case, the qualification enumerated in that Notification are antiquated qualifications because now the qualification has undergone a sea change. It cannot be read to be equivalent to the present day qualifications. The State of Rajasthan had issued letters dated 24.4.1993 making it explicit that only those qualifications which are issued by the Institutions, which are the creation of law, can alone be recognised. Apart from this in the Notification dated 24.4.1993 it has been made clear that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an Institution established by law. Thus, the State of Rajasthan in its Notification dated 23.11.1991 had made it more than obvious that any qualification acquired by taking up examination held by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh would not be a qualification which would be available for seeking to be appointed."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents have also shown the judgment passed by Divison Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Karan Singh Vs. RPSC & Anr. in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.703/2014 on 04.02.2015, whereby the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to be treated as equivalent to Secondary.
(7 of 8) [ CW-9189/2015]
8. Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Sumitra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13325/2015 on 27.11.2015, wherein the same selection process of advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for the same post has been considered by this Court and the writ petitions have been dismissed. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"The emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the judgment in the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra) itself requires reconsideration. The said plea sought to be raised by learend counsel for the petitioner, cannot possibly be countenanced by this Court as the Division Bench judgment can other series of judgments as cited hereinbefore are binding on this Court. The remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else and not in filing the present writ petition for seeking reconsideration of the view taken in the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra).
So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the validity of the order (Annex.8) after the Advertisement issued in the year 2013 is concerned, the same is equally baseless as merely because in the Advertisement issued by the respondents, the petitioner was not debarred, it is not expected of the respondents to grant appointment to such petitioner, who is otherwise disqualified on account of law laid down by this Court.
In view of the above, the stipulation made by the respondents regarding the qualification of the petitioner cannot be faulted.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed."
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as precedent law cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the Government of Rajasthan itself seems to be in dilema over recognition as having been (8 of 8) [ CW-9189/2015] treated equivalent to the Secondary but for the disputed question, there is a consistency in the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court that for appointment in the State of Rajasthan, whereby the qualification obtained from Jamiya Urdu, Aligarh has not been recognized and particularly, when the direct adjudication of the same controversy pertaining to the same advertisement has been made in the matter of Sumitra (supra) following the precendent law of Firdos Tarannum (supra), then it is no more open for this Court to make any fresh adjudication.
10. Consequently, the present writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. zeeshan/