Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3) Factual matrix of the case is that all the petitioners have qualified their M.B.B.S. Examination and they are presently undergoing the Compulsory Rotating Internship for a period of 12 months in terms of Clause 268(d) of the University Ordinance. Petitioners would complete their internship in two batches. While the first batch would complete such internship on 17/3/2011, another batch would complete this on 26/3/2011. The examinations for appointment on the post of Medical Officer were held by the RPSC on 5/10/2010 and thereafter interviews commenced from 12/1/2011 and would continue upto 14/2/2011. Explanation given by the RPSC below Note (2) of the advertisement dated 18/9/2009, inter-alia provides that for being eligible, a candidate must have completed rotating internship till the date of interview. Petitioners are aggrieved by that condition because according to them, if this period is further extended upto the date of completion of their internship; in other words, on completion of 12th month of their compulsory rotating internship respectively on 17/3/2011 and 26/3/2011, they would also be eligible and therefore would be entitled to compete for appointment against advertised posts.

4) Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that when the advertisement was issued by the RPSC, petitioners were made to believe that by the time interviews would be completed, they would complete their internship; thus would be eligible for appointment. The respondent-RPSC ought to have therefore suitably extended the date of interview upto the time petitioners complete internship. This court may therefore direct them to do so because petitioners acquired legitimate expectation by the action of the respondents. It is argued that dates of interview have been arbitrarily fixed by the RPSC on fictitious circumstances. There is no rational or nexus with the object sought to be achieved by fixing the interviews for the period from 12/1/2011 to 14/2/2011, which in any case would continue for more than one month, therefore the process of selection could have been continued even upto the time petitioners acquired eligibility. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments, relied on the judgment of Orissa High Court in Dr.Nilammani Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa : AIR 2010 Orissa 28. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that result of all the petitioners of the final year MBBS Examination was declared in January 2010. They have all been registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council. Registration Certificates issued to them by the Registrar of the Rajasthan Medical Council have been placed on record to substantiate this contention. It is argued that in those certificates, qualification of the petitioners has been shown as M.B.B.S. and Entry 11 Column 5 in Schedule-I appended to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963 (for short, Rules of 1963) regarding Medical Officer merely refers the qualification of M.B.B.S. as eligibility for appointment on the post of Medical Officer. Learned counsel argued that even the University Ordinance 267 also does not envisage the internship to be an integral part of the M.B.B.S. Examination and therefore degree of M.B.B.S. can be awarded even without internship and therefore petitioners cannot be held to be ineligible for appointment.

13) In Brajraj Kumar Sharma supra advertisement was issued by the R.P.S.C. for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak. Learned counsel appearing for the R.P.S.C. in that case while opposing the writ petition argued that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak under Schedule attached to the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Unani Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1973. The minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment on the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak is that of : (i) Degree of Bhishagacharya from University of Rajasthan or (ii) Ayurvedacharya i.e. Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery from University of Rajasthan or (iii) qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by the Government. In that case, the argument was raised that petitioner had passed the examination of B.A.M.S. in April 1995 and the last date for submission of the application form was 16/5/1995. It was argued that petitioner should be held eligible because he had already passed final examination of B.A.M.S. degree course. R.P.S.C. contested the claim of the petitioner by citing clause 5(ii) of the University Ordinances, which provided that degree shall be awarded only after completion of internship of six months. Single Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition by upholding the argument of the R.P.S.C. This judgment was challenged before the Division Bench in Shambhu Lal Sharma supra in which, Division Bench held that if argument of the petitioner was upheld and the advertisement was interpreted in such a manner, it would lead to absurd consequences. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sanju Choudhary supra reiterated the same view by following all the judgments in which case also, internship of the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsak was not yet completed and he was claiming appointment on the strength of final examination of B.A.M.S. passed by them.

14) Coming now to the argument that fixation of dates of examination from 12/1/2011 to 14/2/2011 must be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable as it non-suits a large number of candidates, who would be completing their internship few weeks thereafter, I find that such an argument cannot be accepted on mere ipse dixit of the petitioners. In any selection process, R.P.S.C. has to fix one or the other date for holding written examination and for the purpose of interview. It is a matter of common knowledge that R.P.S.C. is over burdened with number of selections for the government in its different departments. R.P.S.C. has to thus act according to its own convenience. It has to be given freedom to fix its own calender for fixing of dates for written examinations or interviews, considering that lacs of applications are received by it for every selection, that requires lot of exercises to be undertaken on its part. When R.P.S.C. fixes a date for written examination or interview irrespective of particular person or class of persons, it is done for all eligible candidates as has been given in the present case. In view of enormity of number of candidates, R.P.S.C. has to undertake a protracted exercise of holding written examination and interview. Even in this case, interviews have already started in a schedule, which are spread over weeks. Sometimes it is more than even a month. Even in this case, interview would take place from 12/1/2011 and continue upto 14/2/2011. Number of candidates compete for several selections. If the argument of the petitioners is further tested, that if the dates so fixed by the R.P.S.C. for interviews are not taken as correct and dates are postponed to any other time in future, then also, there would always be a situation where some candidates would be non-suited for competing against the posts in question because in their case too, same situation might arise that their internship might not be complete upto the last date on which interviews are fixed. It must be noted that in any selection process for any post, a line has to be drawn somewhere. There would always be a situation where a section of the candidates would be eligible and another section of that candidates would be on the verge of acquiring eligibility. Mere enormity of problem of un-employment of large number of young youth, and that some candidates may not have yet acquired eligibility, possibly may not be a reason to stall the entire process of selection. Doing so would be causing a grave prejudice to those unemployed youth, who have been waiting for employment for years and years, which is scarcely available these days. Learned Additional Advocate General at this stage has given a fair concession that if any candidate would be completing internship upto the last date of interview and if he appears before the R.P.S.C. with such request, there would be no reason why his request would not be accepted. So far as however validity of fixing the dates for interviews is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. Action of R.P.S.C. is just and reasonable. This argument must therefore also fail.