Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prateek Sen S/O Shri R.P. Sain vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 September, 2021
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9622/2021
1. Neha Chandel D/o Manohar Chandel, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Brahampuri Mohalla, City Sawaimadhopur.
2. Pooja D/o Rugharam, R/o Village Pandhi Ka Niwan, Tehsil
Sewada, District Barmer.
3. Gayatri Butoliya D/o Bhinwaram Butoliya, R/o Ward No.
02, Regaro Ka Mohalla, Bus Stand, Udaipuriya, Tehsil
Chomu, District Jaipur.
4. Garima Danodiya D/o Manohar Singh Danodiya, R/o B-
Block, Plot No. 29, Shanti Nagar, Churu.
5. Monika Meena D/o Narsi Lal Meena, R/o Village
Rampurawas, Chawandiya, District Jaipur.
6. Sapna Kumari Meena D/o Kanhaiya Singh, R/o Meena
Mohalla, Sahu Thok Village Sathora, Tehsil Kumher,
District Bharatpur.
7. Chanda Dodiyar D/o Ratan Lal Dodiyar, R/o Ward No. 10,
Dodiyar Fala, Village And Post Khadagada, Sagwara,
District Dungarpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Ayurved And Indian Medical, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Director, Ayurved And Indian Medicine Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director, Ayurved Department, Ajmer.
4. Vice Chancellor, Sr. Sarvpalli Radhakrishan Rajasthan,
Ayurved University Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9667/2021
1. Prateek Sen S/o Shri R.p. Sain, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 15, Kherri Mohalla, Bagar Jhunjhunu
2. Arti Meena D/o Shri Dharam Singh Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of A-82, Tirupati Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur
3. Jyoti Meena D/o Shri Meethalal Meena, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 51, Income Tax Colony (1St), Ramnagariya Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur
4. Savita Kumari Meena D/o Shri Kamlesh Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 12, Mahaveer Nagar, Mandi Road, Alanpur, Iob Bank Ke Pass, Sawaimadhopur
5. Arpita Niyarta D/o Shri Hemraj Niyarta, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of House No. 08, Tilak Nagar, Khandiya (Downloaded on 07/09/2021 at 10:28:18 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-9622/2021] Naka, Jhalawar
6. Rekha Meena D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Meena W/o Shri Dheeraj Kumar Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Meeno Ki Dhani, Village Tigriya, Via Etawa Bhopji, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur
7. Reena Meena D/o Shri Rang Lal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of F-61/1, Ganesh Nagar, Dausa
8. Mamta Kumari Meena D/o Shri Prabhu Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 146, Ran Wali Gali, Luhari Kalan, Bhilwara
9. Sanju Singh D/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 43, Brij Vihar Jagatpura, Jaipur
10. Kesha Ram S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Dabla Aati, Barmer
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Indian Medicine Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Dr. Sarvepalli Radha Krishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Through Its Registrar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Sharma.
Mr. Tanveer Ahmad.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 07/09/2021 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by order in Kusum Paridwal v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11810/2021, decided on 2.9.2021 with other connected matters at principal seat Jodhpur.
In the case of Kusum Paridwal (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court referring to the judgment in The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Zaiba & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.252/2019, decided on 24.4.2020 came to the following conclusion:-
(Downloaded on 07/09/2021 at 10:28:18 PM)(3 of 5) [CW-9622/2021] "14. Admittedly, petitioners have not completed their internship so far and process of document verification is commencing from first of September, 2021. By the date of document verification, neither will their internship be over nor can they get a degree of BAMS.
15. It is a settled proposition of law that eligibility of candidates including educational qualification has to be considered as on the date of submission of application form or as has been indicated in the recruitment notification.
16. The petitioners having taken part in the recruitment process cannot challenge the condition mentioned in the advertisement and pray that the relevant condition be relaxed by 2-3 months or the document verification be deferred till they complete their internship.
17. In the opinion of this court, but for the leverage given in the advertisement permitting the final year students to take part in the recruitment process, the relevant rules of the advertisement require BAMS degree. Merely because the State has given an indulgence to the final year students, petitioners cannot claim further indulgence that either the document verification be postponed or the condition be relaxed.
18. According to this Court, unless a person completes his internship and obtain BAMS degree from the University, he/she is not eligible/entitled to be appointed as Ayurved Medical Officer. Hence, the condition of producing proof of completing BAMS at the time of document verification is a valid condition.
19. That apart, the recruitment notification further requires registration with Indian Medicine Board Rajasthan and a candidate is required to produce certificate of registration. Petitioners cannot have their registration unless they complete their internship and obtain a degree in BAMS.
20. Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 24.04.2020 (D.B. Special Appeal Writ (Downloaded on 07/09/2021 at 10:28:18 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-9622/2021] No.252/2019 : State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Zaiba & Ors.) has held as under:-
"24. Indubitably, the writ petitioners were not holding the requisite qualification as on the date of submission of the application forms online inasmuch as, at the relevant time, they were pursuing their internship and had not acquired the registration with RPMC after completion of the professional course. Merely because, they were permitted to fill up the application form, notwithstanding that they were not holding the requisite qualification as on the date of the submission of application form online, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, no right is created in their favour. The requirement of the eligibility qualification as on the date of the submission of the application form as specified in the advertisement, cannot be relaxed inasmuch as there is no provision in the Rules of 1965 permit such relaxation. Moreover, many more persons who were not having the qualification as on the date fixed for submission of the application form but were in position to obtain the requisite qualification subsequent thereto, might not have even applied for appointment to the post. That apart, if the writ petitioners who are not otherwise eligible to apply for the post, are permitted to participate in the selection process and stand in merit, other persons who were having the requisite qualification as on the date of submission of the application form, may be deprived of the appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cut-off date fixed for the eligibility qualification while initiating the recruitment process needs to the adhered to strictly so as to maintain transparency and fairness in the recruitment process undertaken for public employment."
21. In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court does not find any substance and force in these writ petitions.
(Downloaded on 07/09/2021 at 10:28:18 PM)(5 of 5) [CW-9622/2021]
22. Writ petitions therefore fail.
23. Stay petitions also stand dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioners are not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue raised in the case of Kusum Paridwal (supra) covers the present cases also.
In view of the judgment in the case of Kusum Paridwal (supra), the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J SUMIT SHARMA /227-228 (Downloaded on 07/09/2021 at 10:28:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)