Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prahlad Meena vs Secretary R P S C Ajmer And Anr on 3 January, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13677/2011 Pooja Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No.13699/2011 Jayant Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14955/2011 Dal Chand Krishnan versus State of Rajasthan & ors 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16434/2011 Ritu Rajoriya & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14157/2011 Dinesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14179/2011 Ashok Kumar Regar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 7.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14639/2011 Suresh Dandia versus State of Rajasthan & ors 8.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14844/2011 Manoj Mahawar versus State of Rajasthan & anr 9.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13254/2011 Sushil Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors 10.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13841/2011 Prahlad Meena versus State of Rajasthan & anr 11.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14720/2011 Shelu Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors 12. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15440/2011 Jai Prakash Nayak versus State of Rajasthan & anr 3.1.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr SK Singodiya Mr Suresh Kumar Mr Satish Khandal Mr Rajesh Verma Mr Vipul Jaiman - for petitioners Mr SN Kumawat, Addl Adv General with Mr Shantanu Kumawat Mr MF Beg, Dy GC for respondents BY THE COURT:
Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been claimed, all these writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order.
Pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari, petitioners made applications as they were pursuing their studies in the final year of examination, thereby, likely to appear or appeared in the final year examination. Petitioners were not called for selection in few cases, whereas, in other matters, petitioners were called for selection. In the matters where petitioners were not called for appearance in the selection, interim orders were passed by this court.
The controversy involved in the present matter is as to whether petitioners having passed the requisite examination to possess the qualification can yet be declared ineligible on the ground that they have not completed their one year internship.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that rule does not provide completion of one year internship after completion of BAMS course. In the aforesaid background, petitioners having possessed the requisite qualification cannot be held ineligible for consideration of their candidature on the post in question. This is more so when a candidate pursuing the studies in the last year of the course and has appeared or likely to appear in the final examination is eligible to apply for the post. In the aforesaid background, action of the respondents goes in contradiction inasmuch as at the first instance they allow all the candidates undergoing the course in the last year and are likely to appear or appeared in the final year examination and, on the other hand, asking for internship after passing the course. Since action of the respondents is in contradiction thus taking note of the rule, petitioners should be held eligible as all of them have already passed out the required course as on the date of interview for selection.
In few cases, even registration has been granted by the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13677/2011 at Annexure-2), whereby, on passing out final year examination, petitioners have been given registration and authorised to practice.
Other than the aforesaid, no other issue has been pressed before this court.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that without completion of internship, one is not eligible to practice thus there is no illegality in the action of the Commission. The petitioners are not eligible for selection as they have not completed internship on or prior to date of interview. The issue aforesaid 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, considering the same issue, it was held that those who have not completed internship are not eligible for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak. Since the controversy has already been settled by this court in the aforesaid case, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Therein, other judgments on the issue have also been taken note of. In the case of Shambhu Lal Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr, DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 338/1996, decided on 19.8.1996, same issue was considered and decided. Therein also, petitioners failed to complete six months' internship to become eligible for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
A further reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8593/2007, decided on 25.1.2008, wherein, considering the advertisement with the similar conditions, it was held that those who have not completed internship are not eligible for appointment.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
Respondents have issued advertisement calling for applications for the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari wherein, a candidate appeared or appearing in the final year examination of the course is held eligible to apply but he should possess the qualification before appearance in the interview/ written examination. For ready reference, clause 2 of the advertisement providing educational qualification is quoted hereunder -
2. ???????? ?????????:-
(1) ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????, ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????.
?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????, ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??, ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??????????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????.
(2) ???????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????.
?????????? - ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????-???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??. ??? ????? O.M.R. Application Form ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? "App. ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? O.M.R. Application Form ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????"
Perusal of clause 2 quoted above does not reveals requirement of internship, however, aforesaid issue has already been considered and decided by this court in the case of Sanju Choudhary (supra) so as the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shambhu Lal Sharma (supra). Relevant para of the judgment of the Division Bench is quoted hereunder -
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the advertisement, completion of internship was not necessary as specifically provided for 445 posts of Medical Officers as per item No.4 in the advertisement. This argument was also made before the learned Single Judge, but it did not find favour.
There is no dispute that upto 16.5.1995, i.e. the last date for submission of the application forms, the appellants had not completed six months internship, and the eligibility for the posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsak, was inscribed to have Degree of Bhishagacharya or Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) from the University of Rajasthan or any other recognised institution. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that a Degree of Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) is given on completion of six months internship and not earlier. However, his contention is that as per advertisement Degree was essential for the candidates passing Bhishagacharya but not for Ayurvedacharya. This contention is not acceptable as it would lead absurdity if advertisement is interpreted in such a manner. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is eminently just and proper calling for no interference by this court in exercise of power u/s 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.
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 has elaborately been discussed and it has been held that unless one completes internship, he cannot be held eligible for the post.
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 petitioners even if it is seen in reference to registration given by the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In fact, provisional registration issued by the Board cannot dispense with the requirement of internship as otherwise provided in the Ordinance. Therefore, position of the petitioners is not improved by merely getting registration, that too, without completion of internship. This is more so when it goes against the Ordinance. The registration has been issued in ignorance to the above.
In the aforesaid background, I am not inclined to grant the relief as claimed by the petitioners. These writ petitions are covered by the judgment of the Division Bench so as the Single Bench. Hence, all the writ petitions so as the stay applications are dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to see as to how registration is granted by the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur without completion of internship as one cannot practice without completion of internship in view of the University Ordinance. The State Government is expected to take necessary action in the matter.
(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