Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalla Ram & Anr vs State (Medical & Health ) & Ors on 9 February, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
1. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10526/2011
Dalla Ram & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors
2. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10752/2011
Sukha Ram versus State of Rajasthan & ors
3. SB Civil Writ Petition No.11357/2011
Deepak Giri versus State of Rajasthan & ors
4. SB Civil Writ Petition No.12185/2011
Sita Ram Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors
9.2.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Rameshwar Dave
Mr MS Godara
Mr DS Gharsana - for petitioners
Mr Yashpal Khileree - for respondents
BY THE COURT:
Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been claimed, all these writ petition have been heard together together and are decided by this common order.
By these writ petitions a challenge has been made to the order dated 19.10.2011, whereby, admission of the petitioners in GNM course has been cancelled. The impugned order has been 2 challenged on many grounds.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that pursuant to the advertisement, petitioners made application for their admission in GNM course being in-service candidates. Their applications were considered holding them to be entitled for admission which was then granted to them. After admission and acceptance of their candidature, the impugned order was passed abruptly without following principles of natural justice. Petitioners are held to be overaged and on that ground alone, their admission is cancelled, whereas, for similar course of Lab Technician maximum age has been raised from 35 to 40 years. In the aforesaid background, even discrimination is made by the respondents.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioners made applications for admission to GNM course knowing it well that they are not entitled to get admission in view of the condition of age limit in the advertisement so as under the Rules. It is due to bona fide mistake that their names were considered followed by admission in the course. The mistake was realised by them thus impugned orders have been passed. Since petitioners are not within age limit, rather, crossed the age of 35 years thus there was no need to serve a notice for 3 hearing before passing impugned orders. Mere admission in the course ignoring the rules should not be allowed to perpetuate. Accordingly, writ petitions may be dismissed. The issue of discrimination does not arise herein as the course of Lab Technician is not governed by same set of rules.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case.
A bare perusal of the advertisement annexed, maximum age limit for eligibility for admission to GNM course is provided as 35 years. Petitioners have crossed the age yet applied for admission. The respondents initially ignored the aforesaid and granted admission to the course but realised the mistake thereupon. The respondents were expected to give an opportunity of hearing, however, same has not been granted herein. The fact now remains is as to whether impugned order should be set aside on the aforesaid ground for post decisional hearing though it is also settled that post decisional hearing is nothing but remains an empty formality. For the aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioners were heard for consideration of their case on merit. It is submitted that petitioners made application for their admission and respondents accepted the same knowing it well that petitioners are 4 not within age for such admission. In the aforesaid background, now petitioners cannot be put to a adverse position because, if at all fault lies, it was on the part of the respondents.
As against aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that not only rule provides age limit for admission to the course but even advertisement was containing aforesaid condition indicating as to who would be entitled for admission for the course of GNM. Petitioners knowing it well that they are not falling within the age limit yet made application thus they cannot take advantage of their own default though respondents should have been careful in making scrutiny of the applications but mistake aforesaid may not be perpetuated.
The arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties have been considered with a view to avoid post decisional hearing in the matter. As per order at Annexure-1, it is mentioned that condition for age was made known to all concerned vide the circular dated 1.6.2011. Petitioners have crossed the maximum age yet applied for admission to the course of GNM. In the aforesaid circumstances, when petitioners were not eligible for admission in the course, an error on the part of the respondents cannot give them a right to continue in the course contrary to statutory 5 provisions. The equity claimed by the petitioners is misplaced when it is contrary to rules.
In the aforesaid background, if petitioners are allowed to continue in the course then their continuance would be contrary to statutory provisions as the age limit provided under the rules is upto 35 years.
In the aforesaid background, petitioners' admission in the course was not legally permissible thus respondents had rightly taken a decision to correct it. In view of conclusion drawn on merit, it would be futile to refer the matter to the respondents for providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as post decisional hearing would delay the matter unnecessarily more so when the issue has been decided by this court.
So far as the argument of discrimination is concerned, I find that course of Lab Technician is not governed by the rules applicable herein and the provision applicable to GNM course providing maximum age limit is not under challenge. In view of the aforesaid, petitioners cannot claim relief against the provisions applicable to them.
6
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, hence, writ petitions so as the stay applications are dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharmaAll corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW