Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajay Kumar Khande S/O Shri Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 September, 2021
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9473/2021
1. Ajay Kumar Khande S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Vpo Doongri Kalan, Via Kishangarh Renwal,
Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Ratna Ram S/o Shri Gunesha Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Gajsingh Ka Gaon, Post Jhunjhinyali, Tehsil
Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Shweta Chandra D/o Shri Khemchand Chandra, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Ramnagar Colony, Bandikui, District
Dausa (Raj.)
4. Radha Bamniya D/o Shri Punj Raj Bamniya, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Heera Ki Dhani, Bayatu, District Barmer
(Raj.)
5. Vinod Kumari Yadav D/o Shri Kishan Lal Yadav, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village Amarpura, Tehsil Choumu,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Nisha Dabi D/o Shri Pappu Kumar Dabi, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 116, Mahaveer Nagar, Competition Colony,
Kota City, Kota Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)
7. Ritu Pohiya D/o Shri Shiv Dayal, Aged About 24 Years, R/
o Jodhela, Maharawar Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
8. Manisha Meena D/o Moolchand Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vpo Thikariya, Vila Bavadi, Tehsil Khandela,
District Sikar (Raj.) All Are Selected On The Post Of
Ayurved Medical Officer (A.m.o.) Under The Category Of
St/sc And Obc.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurveda And Indian Medical, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And
Indian Medical, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Ayurveda, Ajmer.
4. Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishanan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Nagaur Road, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
5. The Board Of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan Bajaj Nagar,
(Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:09:34 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-9473/2021]
Jaipur Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Srijana Shrestha for Mr. C.L. Sani, AAG (through VC) Mr. Vishesh Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 10/09/2021 Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the issue raised in the present writ petition 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:-
"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.(Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:09:34 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-9473/2021]
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 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 (Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:09:34 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-9473/2021] 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.
22. Writ petitions therefore fail.
23. Stay petitions also stand dismissed." Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue raised in the case of Kusum Paridwal (supra) covers the present case also.
In view of the judgment in the case of Kusum Paridwal (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J SUMIT SHARMA /34 (Downloaded on 10/09/2021 at 10:09:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)