Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gaurav Gupta And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 3 March, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
1. (S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19091/2013
1. Naveen Singh Negi S/o Shri Jagat Singh Negi, aged about 31 years, r/o
143, Sunny Nagar, Sec-9, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma aged about 30 years, r/o
42 Manu Marg, Govind Nagar West, Amer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Suresh Kumar Sataliya S/o Tegaram Satoliya aged about 31 years R/o
Village Sakray, Post Khiroti, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Sikar (Rajasthan).
4. Dileep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gagan Sahai Sharma aged about about 32
years, R/o Dhakar Colony, Todaraisingh, Tonk (Rajasthan).
5. Surendra Singh Rajput S/o Shri Hari Singh, aged about 31 years, R/o
Gandhi Nagar, Sector NO. 5, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
6. Tara Chand Sethi S/o Shri Mool Chand Sethi aged about 30 years, R/o High
School Road, Raj Bazar, Ward-10, Bandikui, Dausa (Rajasthan).
7. Bajrang Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Kumawat aged about 33 years,
R/o Village Ugriyawas, Via Post Phulera, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
8. Praveen Gautam S/o Shri Badri Prasad Sharma aged about 32 years, R/o
Rajat Garh Colony, Gate No. 1, Bundi (Rajasthan).
9. Ramesh Chand Raigar S/o Shri Sona Ram Raigar aged about 30 years, R/o
Village Post govingpura Basari, Via Khejroli, Tehsil Shapura, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Department of
Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical & Health, Department of Family Welfare, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Indian Medical Association, IMA House, Indraprastha Marg,
New-Delhi.
...Respondents
2. S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18008/2013
1. Bhawani Shankar Sharma S/o Late Shri Purushottam Sharma, aged about
33 years, R/o Village Jharna, Post Mehalam, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. Kumud Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Gupta aged about 32 years,
R/o Kedel Ganj, Mohalla Chappu, Alwar, (Rajasthan).
3. Munesh Chand Gupta S/o Shri Om Gupta aged about 31 years R/o 968-A,
Barkat, Nagar, Tonk Fhatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Shiv Kumar Saini S/o Raghu Nandan Saini aged about 32 years, R/o
Krishna Provision Store, Behind Old Cinema hall, Badiyan Mohalla, Dausa
(Rajasthan).
5. Sharvan lal Yadav S/o Shri Narayan Lal Yadav, aged about ... Years, R/o
181, Shyam Vihar Vistar, Girdharipura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6. Banwari Lal Joshi S/o Chunni Lal Joshi aged about 31 years, R/o Ward No.
15, Sardar Shahar, Churu (Rajasthan).
7. Santosh Kumar Saini S/o Hanuman Sahai Saini aged about 33 years, R/o
Village Dhanota, Via Post Etawa Bhopa, Tehsil Sahapura, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
2
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Department of
Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical & Health, Department of Family Welfare, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Indian Medical Association, IMA House, Indraprastha Marg,
New-Delhi.
...Respondents
3. S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19055/2013
1. Suman Jain D/o Shri Ramesh Chand aged about 23 years, R/o 13/45,
Swarn Path, Mansarover, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Sudesh Kumar Patanwala S/o Shri Satish Kumar Patanwala aged about 27
years, R/o House No. 57 narayan Nagar Lal Singh Judo Colony, Near Govt.
Jaipuia Hospital, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Department of
Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical & Health, Department of Family Welfare, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Indian Medical Association, IMA House, Indraprastha Marg,
New-Delhi.
...Respondents
4. S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19209/2013
1. Vishnu Kumar Gupta s/o Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, aged about 26 years,
R/o Village Post Chawandia, Via Bassi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Himanshu Kumar Bhardwaj D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Shastri aged about 26
years, R/o Village Post Khori, Via Shahpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Amit Patodia S/o Roodmal aged about 25 Years, R/o 114, Bandu Nagar,
Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Anand Singh Yadav s/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav aged about 26 years,
R/o 248, Parashavnath Nagar, Infront of Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
5. Rahul Saini S/o Shri Modla Ram Saini, aged about 29 years, R/o Plot No. 5,
Mahesh Colony, Second, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6. Amrit Rai Saini, S/o Shri Mangal Chand Saini aged about 26 years, R/o
Ringas Road, Anjani Hanuman Mandir Ke Pass, Bhopali Khoti, Harota, Chomu
(Rajasthan).
7. Amit Kumar Dhewa s/o Shri Pratap Singh aged about 26 years, R/o Village
Dhimawali Post Hardiya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhanjhunu (Rajasthan).
8. Ravi Kumar Sain S/o Shri Late. Om Prakesh Verma aged about 27 years,
R/o Sain Mandir, Hataria Choraha, Chattpada, Karouli (Rajasthan).
9. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Harlal Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o Dhani
Kankarwali Post Kanchanpur, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan).
10. Narendra Sharma S/o Shri Ramgopal Sharma, aged about 25 years, R/o
Rawat Bhawan, Plot No. 13, Mahesh Colony, Second, Jagatpur, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
Versus
3
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Department of
Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical & Health, Department of Family Welfare, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Indian Medical Association, IMA House, Indraprastha Marg,
New-Delhi.
...Respondents
5. S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19217/2013
1. Gaurav Gupta S/o Shri Ram Babu Gupta, aged about 24 years, R/o
192/191, Sector 19, Near Janki Devi School, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Shilpa Varma D/o Shri Virendra Kumar Verma aged about 26 years, r/o
339, Moti Nagar (West), Queens Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Sanwar Lal Sharma S/o Ram Nath Sharma aged about 31 years R/o Dhani
Simawaton Ki, Village Bagwara, Via Morioa, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
4. Ashish Saxena S/o Shri Ajay Saxena aged about 28 years, R/o B-79-80,
Murkipura Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
5. Diwakar Sharma S/o Shri Murari Lal Sharma, aged about 33 years, R/o
32/406, Near K.V.6, Sector-3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6. Deepak Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Narsingh Lal Rathore aged about 30 years,
R/o Village Dholi, Via Post Samod, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
7. Amit Bhardwaj S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma aged about 27 years, R/o
Satanand Colony, mandawar mahwa Road, District Dausa (Rajasthan).
8. Firoz Ansari S/o Shri Fazlur Rahman aged about 27 years, R/o Ward No. 7,
Near Sangam Cinema, Khandela, Sikar (Rajasthan).
9. Bhupendra Kumar Chatirvedi S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Chaturvedi, aged
about 32 years, R/o Kalyan Gi Ka Chok, Todarasingh, Tonk (Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary Department of
Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical & Health, Department of Family Welfare, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration) Medical & Health Services, Swasthaya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Indian Medical Association, IMA House, Indraprastha Marg,
New-Delhi.
...Respondents
Date of Order: March 3rd, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, GC for the State.
4
BY THE COURT:
This bunch of five writ petitions involve a common question of law as to the eligibility of the petitioners for the post of Laboratory Technician under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1965') as amended on 30-8-2013. They are all therefore being decided by this common judgment. SBCWP No.19091/2013 is taken as the lead case and its facts where necessary adverted to.
An advertisement dated 10-7-2013 was issued by the Director Medical & Health Department of Family Welfare (hereinafter `the Director') inviting applications for the post of Lab Technician encadered under the Rules of 1965. The eligibility prescribed at the relevant time was as under:-
S.No. Name Source of Qualification & Post Qualification Remarks of Post recruitment Experience for from & Experience for with percentage Direct recruitment/Promotion Promotion is to be made
4. 100.00% Secondary or its There shall Laboratory with 9 months Training be no Technician Certificate From Institution distinction recognized by Government between Laboratory Or Technician and In the event of non-availability Malaria Technician.
of candidates The cadre will be possessing certificate of 9 redesignated as months training from Laboratory Institution recognized by Technician only. Government, the candidates possessing the following qualifications can be considered
-Secondary of a recognized Board or its equivalent with two years training certificate of Laboratory Technology Course run by the Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur or B.Sc. With Biology with Post graduate Diploma in Laboratory Technology from Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer with hospital based training in JLN Medical College, Ajmer recognized by Government."5
The Rules of 1965 were however amended vide notification dated 30-8-2013, whereunder eligibility for the post of Lab Technician was altered. It then was as under:-
S.No. Name Source of Qualification & Post Qualification Remarks of Post recruitment Experience for from & Experience for with percentage Direct recruitment/Promotion Promotion is to be made
4. 100.00% Senior Secondary in Science There shall Lab Technician with Biology or Mathematics be no or its equivalent with diploma distinction from an institute recognized between Laboratory by the Rajasthan State Government Technician and Central Government/ Rajasthan Malaria Technician.
Para Medical Council and The cadre will be
registered in Rajasthan Para Medical redesignated as
Council Laboratory
Technician only.
The petitioner has passed the Senior Secondary in Science stream with Biology/ Mathematics. He has also obtained a two years diploma in Laboratory Technology Course from the Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur (SDMH) prior to 30-8-2013.
He thus claims to have the requisite eligibility for consideration for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician under the advertisement dated 10-7-2013 even as amended on 30-8-2013 and Schedule-I to the Rules of 1965 also amended on 30-8-2013. It has been submitted that at the time the petitioner acquired the two years diploma in Laboratory Technology course from SDMH, the said course was recognized by the State of Rajasthan. As such the petitioner has the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician despite the amendment of rule 9 and 10 of the Rules of 1965 as also Schedule-I thereto effective 30-8-2013 and reflected in the corrigendum dated 30-8-2013 to the 6 advertisement dated 10-7-2013. It has been submitted that yet the petitioner was arbitrarily not considered for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician for reason of his purported lacking eligibility. Hence this petition.
The defence of the respondent Director in the reply to the petition is that albeit the petitioner did indeed complete the two years diploma course in Laboratory Technology from SDMH, before its deletion from Schedule-I of the Rules of 1965 effective 30-8- 2013 and even though the qualification obtained by the petitioner from SDMH may have remained valid, yet it does not after 30-8- 2013 suffice to confer on him the statutorily mandated eligibility for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician as set out in Schedule-I of the Rules of 1965. It was submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is founded upon confusing his qualification as a holder of a Lab Technology diploma from SDMH, valid as it might be, with the eligibility required under the advertisement dated 10- 7-2013 as amended on 30-8-2013 following amendment of even date to the Rules of 1965. In the circumstances, the writ petition be dismissed.
Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Ashwini Jaiman for the petitioner submitted that non consideration of 7 candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician under the Rules of 1965 and the advertisement dated 10-7-2013 (amended 30-8-2013) on the ground that his qualification in the Lab Technician course not being from an institution recognized by the State/ Central Government/ Para Medical Council is wholly misdirected, arbitrary and illegal. Counsel submitted that even subsequent to the amendment to Rules of 1965 as also the corrigendum to the advertisement dated 10-7- 2013, both effective 30-8-2013, the petitioner had/ has the requisite qualification of a diploma in Lab Technician course for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician. Mr. Ashok Gaur submitted that the mere deletion or non inclusion of the qualification of the diploma course in Laboratory Technology from SDMH from Schedule-I of the Rules of 1965 effective 30-8-2013 did not entail derecognition of the said qualification earlier acquired at the time it was duly recognized. Reliance was placed by Mr. Ashok Gaur on the judgment of this court in the case of Shankar Lal Vs. RSEB [1999(1) WLC 1]. Reference was also made to the judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [2015(3) CDR 1066] and it was submitted that even where a qualification is derecognized, the derecognition would be prospective, and the qualification acquired prior thereto would have to be treated as a valid qualification. It was submitted that thus the petitioner with a 8 valid diploma in Laboratory Technology course obtained when recognized by the State Government and also having qualification of Senior Secondary certificate in Science stream with Mathematics/ Biology was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician advertised on 10-7-2013/ 30-8-2013.
Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent Director however submitted that appointments to the post advertised have necessarily to reckon for the eligibility prescribed under the operating recruitment rules--in this case the extant Rules of 1965, and terms and conditions of the advertisement consonant therewith. He submitted that on this fundamental test the petitioner has no case, inasmuch as for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician effective 30-8- 2013, the prospective candidates aside of Senior Secondary in Science stream with Biology or Mathematics were also required to have a diploma in medical lab technician from an institute recognized by the State Government/ Central Government or the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. It was submitted that the petitioner does not have the requisite diploma as required by Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules of 1965 and the prescribed qualification for the said post set out in Schedule-I of Rules of 1965, even though he may have a duly recognized diploma in Laboratory Technician course from 9 SDMH acquired at a time it was recognized by the State Government. It was submitted that in the case of Ajju Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.700/2016 decided on 19-9-2016, it was held by this court that where qualification of a candidates seeking appointment to Laboratory Technician did not have recognition from the State or Central government or for that matter from the Para Medical Council, he could not be held to be eligible for the post of Lab Technician under the Rules of 1965. Mr. Sanjay Sharma submitted that a similar view was taken in the case of Ladhe Ram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan [2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 214]. It has been submitted that consequently the writ petition is without force and be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
Advertisement was first issued on 10-7-2013 inviting applications for the post of Laboratory Technician with eligibility of secondary and amongst others a 2 year diploma in Laboratory Technician course from SDMH. Subsequently, pursuant to notification dated 30-8-2013 amending Rules 10 and 9 of the Rules of 1965, and Schedule-I thereto, the advertisement dated 10-7- 2013 was simultaneously amended vide corrigendum dated 30-8- 2013. The eligibility for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician thereupon came to be Senior Secondary in Science with 10 Biology or Mathematics or its equivalent with diploma from an institute recognized by the Rajasthan State Government Central Government/ Rajasthan Para Medical Council and registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council.
It is no doubt true that the petitioner had acquired a two year diploma in Laboratory Technician course from SDMH prior to 30- 8-2013 whence the said diploma was excluded from the statutorily prescribed eligibility for appointment as Laboratory Technician. It is also no doubt true that prior to 30-8-2013 the two year diploma of laboratory technician from SDMH was a valid qualification which sufficed to furnish eligibility for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician under the then extant Rules of 1965. But admittedly subsequent to the amendment of 30-8-2013 the said qualification of laboratory technician course from SDMH ceased to furnish the requisite eligibility. It is important to differentiate between a qualification and the eligibility for a post. A qualification may be valid yet, may, under the policy of the employer, not supply the eligibility to a post. The petitioner's qualification of a diploma in Laboratory Technology from SDMH was obtained prior to 30-8- 2013. Even though the amendment of the Rules of 1965 effective 30-8-2013 did not entail derecognition of the petitioner's diploma in Laboratory Technology course from SDMH, it sadly for the 11 petitioner subsequent to 30-8-2013 did not furnish eligibility for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician under the Rules of 1965.
A some what similar situation arose before the Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board UP Vs. Upendra Rai [(2008)3 SCC 432]. There the question was with regard to the eligibility of the respondent Upendra Rai to be appointed as Assistant Master in junior basic schools in UP. The essential academic and training qualification prescribed as eligibility for the post of Assistant Master of Junior Basic School in UP were set out in rule 8 of the UP Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1981'), which had been framed under the UP Basic Education Act, 1972. Earlier, the eligibility prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Master was intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh (later Bachelor's Degree) and training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. 2 year diploma in education from DIET Jabalpur was recognized as equivalent to BTC by the UP Government, subsequently vide circular dated 11-8-1997 the UP Government rescinded the said 12 equivalence. The Apex Court was called upon to consider as to whether the respondent Upendra Rai had the requisite second essential requirement viz. Training qualification for appointment as an Assistant Master after 11-8-1997. The case of the respondent Upendra Rai was that aside of requisite academic qualification (of which there was no dispute) he had the training qualification necessary as he had obtained a Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) after completing two years course from DIET Jabalpur in M.P., recognized equivalent with BTC in UP, even though the equivalence had been rescinded on 11-8-1997. It was submitted that the equivalence prevailing before the recession of 11-8-1997 when he had acquired the D.Ed. From DIET Jabalpur rendered him eligible despite the circular dated 11-8-1997, the Apex Court however held that as the equivalence of Diploma in Education from DIET Jabalpur, MP with BTC was rescined as a matter of policy for appointments to the post of Assistant Master by the UP Government's Circular dated 11-8- 1997, subsequent thereto the respondent Upendra Rai could not claim to have the requisite eligibility of training qualification for appointment as an Assistant Master in a Junior Basic School in UP under the Rules of 1981.
The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Upendra Rai (supra) makes it manifest that the recruiting authority is empowered 13 to alter conditions of eligibility for appointment to a post under its watch. And the altered eligibility conditions, as extant, are determinative on the issue of appointment and unless successfully impugned for contravention of statutory or constitutional provisions they are binding in the recruitment process. A qualification may confer eligibility for a post at a given time, but after an amendement may cease to confer eligibility for appointment on the very same post.
From the aforesaid enunciation of law what flows is that the petitioner had to satisfy the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of laboratory technician under the Rules of 1965 as obtaining following the amendment dated 30-8-2013 to the Rules of 1965 and to the initial advertisement dated 10-7-2013. The petitioner's eligibility for the post in issue in pre 30-8-2013 era was/ is wholly irrelevant after the amendment to the Rules of 1965 vide notification dated 30-8-2013. Thereunder aside of Senior Secondary in Science stream with Biology or Mathematics, a candidate also has to have for appointment as Lab Technician a diploma in medical laboratory technician from an institute recognized by the State Government/ Central Government/ Rajasthan Para Medical Council and none other. Admittedly the petitioner does not have such a diploma. His qualification of a two years diploma in 14 Laboratory Technician from SDMH, even while valid as it was acquired prior to its derecognition effective 30-8-2013 does not supply the eligibility requirement for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician under the extant Rules of 1965.
In the case of Union of India Vs. Yogendra Singh [1994 Supp. (2) SCC 226] the Apex Court held that no candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualification, but who may have had possessed the educational qualification prescribed earlier, can be said to qualify or have any vested right to get appointment even against some unfilled vacancies and a candidate who aspires to fill any vacancy must possess the educational qualifications that are then prescribed at the time of recruitment.
Similarly in the case of Chairman, School of Buddhist Philosophy Vs. Makhan Lal Mattoo [1991-I LLJ 610] the Apex Court held that even where the respondent administrative officer was holding additional charge of Principal of a School and was at the relevant time qualified according to the then existing rules, which were then subsequently amended with the approval of the Government raising the eligibility bar, he could not claim to be appointed on the basis of the eligibility prescribed at the time when he was earlier given the additional charge of Principal of School. His 15 eligibility had to be tested on the basis of amended rules at the time the appointments were actually made. This decisions makes it clear that a candidate cannot be recruited on the basis of qualification earlier prescribed but has to have the eligibility prescribed at the time of the appointment being made.
Reliance by Shri Ashok Gaur on the judgment of this court on 17-12-2014 in SBCWP No.1571/2012, Rakesh Kumar Nagar Vs. State of Rajasthan, is of no avail. The said case related to recruitment to the post of Lab Technician under the Rules of 1965 pursuant to advertisement dated 6-10-2009 and the resultant select list, prior to the amendment of the Rules of 1965 effective 30-8-2013. The amendment of 30-8-2013 was also not brought to the court's notice. However, all that the court held was that the eligibility for post of Laboratory Technician under the Rules of 1965 as set out in Schedule-I included at the relevant time, a diploma in Laboratory Technician course from SDMH and the attempt by the respondents to negate the statutory eligibility so prescribed by an administrative order such as of 26-6-2002 could not be countenanced. In the circumstances, on facts before it, the court took the view that holders of diploma in Laboratory Technician course from SDMH could not be excluded from the select list. Such a situation does not obtain in the instant case and a sea change in the recruitment rule has to be 16 reckoned for. The eligibility for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician under the rules of 1965 excludes effective 30-8-2013 by way of a statutory amendment the qualification of 2 year diploma in Laboratory Technician course from SDMH as eligibility for the post of Lab Technician. The judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Nagar (supra) being based on wholly different facts and issue, is thus of no help to the petitioner.
In view of the state of law detailed above emphasizing the right of the employer to determine eligibility for appointment to a post and the necessity to fulfill the eligibility as prescribed for appointment without regard to the eligibility to the post earlier prescribed, reliance by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this court in case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State [2011(3) WLC 56] is of no avail. The said case does not even remotely deal with the issue agitated and considered in this petition. Similarly the judgment in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [2012(3) RLW 2588] and the law laid down therein has no bearing on the issue considered in this judgment. The law enunciated by this court in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [2015(3) CDR 1066] and Shankar Lal Vs. RSEB (supra) are unexceptional insofar as it holds that the derecognition of a qualification is prospective in nature and does not affect the validity 17 of qualification earlier obtained during the currency of recognition of such qualification. But again the issue in this petition is not so much about the validity of the petitioner's qualification as a holder of a diploma in Laboratory Technician course from SDMH of which there is no doubt, but about his having the prescribed eligibility to be appointed to the post of Laboratory Technician under the Rules of 1965 following the amendment thereto effective 30-8-2013. That eligibility as discussed above, the petitioner lacks.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
I find no force in the petitions. The same are dismissed. A copy of this order placed in connected cases.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 18 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.