Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ahmed Khan vs Raj. Public Service Commmission & Anr on 8 February, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1093/2012
Ahmed Khan versus RPSC & anr
8.2.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Manoj Bhandari - for petitioner
BY THE COURT:
Pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Unani Medical Officer, petitioner made application as he is is undergoing internship and would be completing the same by 13.3.2012 whereas interviews are going to be held on 13th and 14th of February, 2012 by which date petitioner would not be in a position to complete internship.
The controversy involved in the present matter is as to whether petitioner having passed the requisite examination to possess the qualification can yet be declared ineligible on the ground that the has not completed his internship.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that rule does not provide one year internship after completion of Bachelor of Unani 2 Medicines & Surgery (BUMS) course. In the aforesaid background, petitioner having possessed the requisite qualification cannot be held ineligible for consideration of his candidature on the post in question. This is more so when a candidate even undergoing course is also eligible to apply for the post. In the aforesaid background, respondents should allow the petitioner in the interview.
Other than the aforesaid, no other issue has been pressed before this court.
I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused record of the case.
Admittedly, petitioner is undergoing internship and it would not be completed upto the date of interview for selection to the post in question thus petitioner is not treated eligible for selection. Similar issue has already been decided by this court in the case of Sanju Choudhary & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors, reported in 2009 WLC (Rajasthan) 154. Therein, it was held that those who have not completed internship are not eligible for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak. Therein, other judgments on the issue were also considered. In the case of "Shambhu Lal Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr", DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 338/1996, 3 decided on 19.8.1996, same issue was earlier considered and decided. Therein also, petitioners failed to complete six months' internship to become eligible for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak.
In the case of "Mukesh Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8593/2007, decided on 25.1.2008, considering the advertisement with the similar conditions, it was held that those who have not completed internship are not eligible for appointment.
Same view has been taken by this court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & ors (supra) and, recently, in the case of "Nishant & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 343/2011, decided on 13.1.2011, wherein, the issue aforesaid was elaborately discussed and it has been held that unless one completes internship, he cannot be held eligible for the post as not entitled for practice.
Looking to the judgments referred to above, wherein the issue raised herein has already been dealt with, I cannot take a different view. Thus, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find merit in the writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW