Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abhay Pratap vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 483/2021
Abhay Pratap S/o Shri Ramdarash Bharti, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident of Village Yusufpur Khabra, Tehsil Jakhniya, District
Ghazipur (U.p.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical and
Health Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Medical and Health Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Manoj Bohra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
17/08/2021
1. This intra court appeal is directed against judgment dated
14.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court,
whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, seeking
directions to the respondents to consider his candidature for
appointment to the post of Assistant Radiographer pursuant to
advertisement dated 12.06.2020 issued by Rajasthan State Staff
Selection Board ('Selection Board'), has been dismissed.
2. The candidature of the appellant was rejected inasmuch as,
he failed to apply for registration before the Rajasthan Para
(2 of 5) [SAW-483/2021]
Medical Council ('RPMC') prior to last date of submitting the
application form i.e. 30.07.2020.
3. Precisely, the contention of the appellant before the learned
Single Judge was that as per Clause No.6 (Educational
Qualification for Assistant Radiographer) of advertisement, a
candidate desirous of appointment was required to submit the
certificate at the time of verification of the documents and thus,
the action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the
appellant was absolutely unjustified.
4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition
observing that the eligibility of a candidate has to be seen on the
last date of submitting application form and since the requirement
of the registration with RPMC is sine qua non for appointment, the
action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the
candidates who had not applied for registration by the last date of
submission of the application form, cannot be faulted with.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the appellant had obtained the diploma outside the Rajasthan and
therefore, RPMC did not register the appellant, however, the
certificate of registration was ultimately issued on 18.11.2020,
which was submitted by the appellant before the Selection Board
vide communication dated 23.11.2020 and thus, the action of the
respondents in denying appointment to the appellant is absolutely
unjustified. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Walaiti Ram Charan Dass & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.:
(2019) 9 SCC 779, learned counsel contended that the appellant
could not obtain the certificate within time for the reasons beyond
his control and therefore, the requirement of furnishing the
(3 of 5) [SAW-483/2021]
registration certificate as on the cut off date should have been
relaxed by the respondents.
6. Indisputably, in the note appended to clause 6 of the
advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that in case, the
candidate applying for appointment, does not possess the
registration certificate issued by the RPMC as on the last date of
submission of the application form, he must apply for registration
upto the last date of submission of the application form and
produce the same at the time of verification of the documents. In
other words, the candidates who had applied for registration by
the last date of submitting the application form and furnished the
proof of their registration at the time of documents verification,
were to be treated eligible for appointment to the post.
7. Admittedly, the appellant failed to apply for registration by
the last date of submitting application form and thus, even as per
the note appended on the basis of a decision of the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.13922/17, the appellant was not eligible
to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant
Radiographer.
8. A Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Zaiba:
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.252/2019, decided on 24.04.2020,
while dealing with the issue of eligibility as on the last date of
submission of application form, categorically held :
"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
(4 of 5) [SAW-483/2021]
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." (emphasis added)
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue raised by
the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in
Zaiba's case (supra). The appellant was not entitled for any
relaxation in eligibility qualification required for recruitment to the
post as on the last date of submission of the application form.
10. In Walaiti Ram's case (supra), while dealing with the matter
regarding the renewal of license to operate the shop in Agricultural
Produce Market, the Court observed that if any dealer had
submitted a complete application for renewal prior to the expiry of
his license but the license was not renewed for three months for
no fault of the dealer then he would be entitled to count that
period as a period of license.
11. Suffice it to say that the view taken by the Supreme Court in
Walaiti Ram's case (supra), taking into consideration the specific
case of renewal of license cannot have any application in the
matter of public employment where the eligibility of a person has
to be examined as on the cut off date.
(5 of 5) [SAW-483/2021]
12. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
13. No case for interference in intra-Court appeal jurisdiction is
made out.
14. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
24-Aditya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
