Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Divya Meena D/O B.D. Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 September, 2021
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9717/2021
Divya Meena D/o B.d. Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 108,
New Grain Mandi, Near Airodrum Circle, Kota-324002, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Ayurved And Indian Medicine, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Vice Chancellor, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan
Ayurved University, Jodhpur.
3. Board Of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Plot No. 1E, Near
Mahaveer Udhyan, Mahaveer Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sobha Sharma for Mr. S. C. Pachori.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. L. Saini, AAG.
Mr. Bharat Saini.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/09/2021 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 08/09/2021 at 10:16:41 PM)(2 of 4) [CW-9717/2021] "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 08/09/2021 at 10:16:41 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-9717/2021] 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 08/09/2021 at 10:16:41 PM)(4 of 4) [CW-9717/2021]
22. Writ petitions therefore fail.
23. Stay petitions also stand dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner is 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 petitioner is dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 175-SACHIN KHUSHWAHA /685 (Downloaded on 08/09/2021 at 10:16:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)