Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tosib Ansari Son Of Shri Shakir Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 October, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11161/2020
1. Tosib Ansari Son Of Shri Shakir Hussain, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Gali No.2, Sanjay Nagar, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota
Junction, Kota (Rajasthan) 324002.
2. Gajendra Singh Bhayal Son Of Shri Mang Singh Bhayal,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Telwada, Tehsil Siwana,
District Barmer (Rajasthan).
3. Zenul Akhter Son Of Shri Abdul Salam Khan, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Near Kale Shah, Baba Ka Mazar, Shafiq
Colony, Top Khana Road, Jhalarapatan, Jhalawar
(Rajasthan). 326001.
4. Deepak Sharma Son Of Shri Jagdish Chand Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 67, Sainathpuram-Iii, Jhalawar City,
Jhalawar (Rajasthan) 326001.
5. Biram Chand Lodha Son Of Shri Mangilal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ganeshpura Chowk, Ganeshpura Near Dhaba,
Lasudia Shaha B, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) 326033.
6. Paras Kumar Carpenter Son Of Shri Balkrishan, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of 142, Holi Ka Chowk,
Nasirabad, Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar
(Rajasthan).
7. Pravin Kumar Son Of Shri Narendra Kumar, Aged About
39 Years, Resident Of 2214, Sunaro Ka Vas, Samdari,
Siwana, Barmer (Rajasthan) 344021.
8. Chain Singh Son Of Shri Peer Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Dhudiya Moti Singh (Bhata), Bhata, Barmer
(Rajasthan) 344801.
9. Mohd. Irshad Son Of Shri Mohd. Saeed Khan, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Mandi Mohalla, Pirawa, District Jhalawar
(Rajasthan) 326034.
10. Kanhaiya Rai S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Rai, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Choga Ki Bawadi, Ladpura, Kota (Rajasthan).
11. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shiv Charan Sharma,
Aged About 39 Years, R/o Old Nakoda Colony, Tea
Factory, Baran District Baran (Rajasthan).
12. Pradeep Singh S/o Shri Bakhtar Singh, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khyali Tehsil Malsisar
District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:04:37 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-11161/2020]
13. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Balu Ram Suman, Aged About
32 Years, Resident Of Village Rajpuriya, Post Badora,
Tehsil Atru District Baran (Rajasthan).
14. Emran Khan S/o Khauju Mohammad, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Mandir Wali Gali, Jawar, Jhalawar (Rajasthan
326037.
15. Lalit Mohan S/o Shri Sadhu Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Bhonker District Alwar (Rajasthan).
16. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Narnarayan Sharma,
Outside Railway Phatak, Dhadhich Colony, Krishnapuri,
Madanganj Kishangarh, Ajmer.
17. Deepak Sharma Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Indoriya,
Resident Of Keshav Nagar, Chomu District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
18. Mohan Singh Jodha S/o Narayan Singh Jodha, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Jodha Ka Bas, Ward No.9, Ladnu District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
19. Jai Kumar Panwar S/o Shri Devilal Panwar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Shastri Nagar, Barmer (Rajasthan).
20. Ajay Pal Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Barmer Aagar, Barmer (Rajasthan).
21. Mahaveer Singh Son Of Shri Swaroop Singh, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Indroi Barmer (Rajasthan).
22. Mohsin Khan S/o Mohd. Farookh, Aged About 30 Years, R/
o Indra Colony, Barmer (Rajasthan).
23. Hari Singh S/o Shri Guman Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Village And Post Tangeta, Barmer (Rajasthan).
24. Kishan Lal S/o Shri Jagmala Ram, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Vishnu Nagar, Bawarla, Jalore (Rajasthan).
25. Daja Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Vaga Ramji Dhanta, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Jalore (Rajasthan).
26. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Satyanarayan, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 18, Lnp, Ladhuwala, Gangagar (Rajasthan).
27. Pawan Kumar Mittal Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Mittal,
Aged About 38 Years, R/o Pali Chhabra District Baran
(Rajasthan).
28. Indra Pal Singh Son Of Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About
41 Years, R/o Brahmawad, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
29. Navdeep Singh Maan S/o Shri Labh Singh, Aged About 39
(Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:04:37 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-11161/2020]
Years, R/o Rsh-15, Ridhi Sidhi First, Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
30. Rehan Mirza Son Of Mohammad Saleem, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Idea Tower Ke Samne, Dalal Pada, Sangod,
Kota (Rajasthan) 325601.
31. Khalil Mohammad Son Of Gani Mohammad, Aged About
36 Years, R/o 25, Hasmat Colony, Bundi Road, Outside
Delhi Gate, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) 312001.
32. Chetan Vijay Son Of Shri Laxmanavatar Vijay, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Anandpura @ Phoota
Talab, Kota (Rajasthan).
33. Shobha Lal Dhakar S/o Shri Jai Chand Dhakar, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village Narsinghpura, Post Nandgai,
Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
34. Rijwan Solanki S/o Mohammad Salim, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Bichali Khidki, Kishangarh, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
35. Liyakat Khan Son Of Daud Khan, Aged About 34 Years, R/
o Tekarwas Khara Kua Colony, Ward No.10, Bhinmal
District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary, National Health Mission,
Rajasthan, Medical, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Mark, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Director - R.c.h., Medical, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Rajasthan
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
with Mr. Siddhant Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:04:37 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-11161/2020] 12/10/2020 This writ petition has been filed wherein a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the advertisement dated 31.8.2020 issued by respondent no.3 on the ground that the petitioners have been deprived from participating in the Bridge Course although, they had passed the examination conducted for candidates for joining the Bridge Course under an earlier advertisement dated 17.1.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as there was pick and choose method conducted for candidates to join the course, they had filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.2885/2020 before this court wherein an interim order was passed restraining the respondents from conducting training of Bridge Programme in Community Health course at Jaipur and Udaipur. Learned counsel submits that they were not allowed to join Bridge Course inspite of being in merit. Now subsequently advertisement dated 31.8.2020 has been issued for recruiting on the post of CHO wherein qualification has been laid down for candidates who have completed Bridge Course and would therefore deprive the petitioners from participating in the selection process. Hence, unless the training programme under the earlier advertisement dated 17.1.2019 is completed, the advertisement dated 31.8.2020 should not be acted upon.
Learned Advocate General submits that present advertisement dated 31.8.2020 is inexclusion of the earlier advertisement dated 17.1.2019 which was only for the purpose of training. The present advertisement is for filling up the posts of CHO and the qualification which has been laid down for the present advertisement is in Para 3 of the advertisement which reads as under:- (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:04:37 PM)
(5 of 6) [CW-11161/2020] "3. All candidates have to appear for a screening exam and short listed candidates a. having Certificate in Community Health (CCH)/ B.Sc. in Community Health will be posted on contractual post of CHO in SHC-H & WCs.
b. Who do not have certificate in Community Health (CCH) have to pass the 6 months bridge course successfully.
(i) If candidate is not successful in the Bridge Course in first attempt, he/she shall be given one more opportunity (at the willingness of candidate) and for this second opportunity the fees and other expenditure of Bridge Course shall be borne by candidate himself/herself.
(ii) If any candidate is not qualified even after availing second opportunity, such candidates shall not be considered for the contractual post of CHO."
Learned Advocate General submits that unless the petitioners fulfill the qualification of having completed the course in Community Health, they cannot be considered as eligible as per Clause 3(a). Learned Advocate General submits that as per Clause 3(b) above, those who do not have certificate course would become eligible for appointment and after they have undergone the training and they would be allowed to join on the post of CHO. Since the petitioners have not undergone certificate of Community Health Training, they would fall in the category of Clause 3(b), if ultimately selected and passed the screening examination.
Merely because they had passed screening examination under the advertisement dated 31.8.2020 which was issued earlier on 17.1.2019, no right is created in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners would have to appear again for the screening examination as the same is common for all.
I have considered the submissions.
Participation in the earlier advertisement for training course of Bridge Programme in Community Health under the advertisement (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:04:37 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-11161/2020] dated 17.1.2019 and having passed the said examination does not create any right in favour of the petitioners for appointment under the advertisement dated 31.8.2020. If the State has chosen to issue a fresh advertisement by conducting a fresh screening exam including both candidates who have already passed the certificate in Community Health/ B.Sc. in Community Health also those who would undergo six months certificate in Community Health, it cannot be said in any manner to be objectionable. Common select list can always be prepared and candidates possessing qualification would either be allowed to join directly on the contractual post of CHO or would first undergo six months training and then join.
In view of the terms of new advertisement, the petitioners who have passed earlier exam under the advertisement dated 17.1.2019 cannot be said to have an indefeasible right in their favour to directly join the six months course as envisaged under the advertisement dated 31.8.2020 merely because they had passed exam for joining the Bridge Programme earlier. In fact this court is of the opinion that the earlier advertisement dated 17.1.2019 has become redundant now and from the language of the advertisement for filling up the post of CHO issued now on 31.8.2020, it is apparent that a State Government has decided to have a comprehensive test for all candidates.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the claim raised by the petitioners is found to be wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Karan Bhutani /531/41 (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:04:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)