Rajasthan High Court
Krishna Gopal Sharma S/O Radhey ... vs Principal Secretary, Department ... on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6717/2020
Krishna Gopal Sharma S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About
47 Years, R/o Village Kheriya Brahman, Post Jharkai, Tehsil
Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321642.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute
Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan - 302018.
3. Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia on behalf of
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG
Mr. Bharat Saini AGC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
16/12/2021
The petitioner has challenged the vires of the amendment in
the recruitment rules made vide notification dated 30/08/2013.
The petitioner holds the qualifications of Secondary pass and
Diploma in Medical Lab Technology. By the impugned notification
the State Government amended the recruitment rules for the post
of Lab Technician. Prior to amendment the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the statutory recruitment rules for the post in
question was Secondary or its equivalent of 9 months training
certificate from institute recognised by the government.
(2 of 4) [CW-6717/2020]
Substituting those requirements by amending the Rajasthan
Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, the State
Government has now made the following eligibility criteria
compulsory:-
Senior Secondary in Science with either Biology or
Mathematics or its equivalent with Diploma in Medical Lab
Technician from an institute recognised by the State
Government/Central Government/Rajasthan Para Medical
Council.
The petitioner's main challenge is that the previous rules did
not insist on a candidate possessing Secondary School Certificate
with Biology or Mathematics as compulsory subjects.
It is not necessary to go into the challenge in detail since two
division benches on earlier occasions have already rejected
identical challenges made before this court. Our attention was
drawn by the learned Government Advocate to a judgment of
division bench dated 29/04/2013 in Civil Writ Petition
No.6376/2013 in case of Kishan Kumar Swarnkar Vs. The State of
Rajasthan and another in which challenge to the same amendment
came to be rejected in following terms:-
"Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
on a consideration of the materials on record, we do not
feel persuaded to sustain the grounds of challenge. Not
only, the decision to upgrade the academic qualification
from Secondary to Senior Secondary with Biology is
within the exclusive domain of the rule making authority,
the upgraded academic qualification per se cannot be
construable to be irrelevant for the post involved. The
retention of the earlier academic qualification of
Secondary or its equivalent for the in-service candidates
for promotion to the post of Laboratory Technician, and
that too, in the alternative, per se does not render the
prescription of the higher qualification of Senior
Secondary with Biology for direct recruitment, in
competent or invalid. Candidates for direct recruitment
being not already in service, they cannot be heard to
question the wisdom of the rule making authority in
(3 of 4) [CW-6717/2020]
prescribing a higher academic qualification or relatively a
more stringent condition of eligibility for a post to be
filled up by direct recruitment in public service, unless
those are wholly unwarranted and unrelated to the same.
To reiterate, in the facts of the present case, having
regard to the post involved i.e. Laboratory Technician, the
upgraded academic qualification can, by no means, be
discarded as irrelevant or impertinent. In exercise of the
power of judicial review, therefore, no interference with
the amendments in the conditions of eligibility for the
post of Laboratory Technician to be filled up by direct
recruitment is called for. The upgradation having been
made in the exigencies of service, the same is
unassailable.
The challenge lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.
Stay application also stands rejected."
In case of Hukam Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan
and others (DBCWP No.6837/2013) division bench rendered a
judgment on 27/05/2013. In the said case, the persons interested
in direct recruitment to the post in question had challenged the
amendment in the rules as well as questioned the State
Government in following old eligibility criteria for promotion. This
petition was also dismissed in the following terms:-
"Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and
on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the
documents on record, we are not inclined to sustain these
contentions.
The petitioners are seeking appointment to the post of
Laboratory Technician as a direct recruit. It is within the
discretion and domain of the State respondents to
prescribe the norms of eligibility adjudged to be best
suited for a post and this Court, in exercise of the power
of judicial review, would not interfere, unless such
prescription is patently illegal and unconstitutional.
Alteration in the existing criteria of eligibility rendering
some ineligible thereby, would not ipso facto, make the
modification invalid. That the qualifications for the post of
Laboratory Technician prescribed by the 2013 Rules are
either irrelevant or have no correlation whatsoever with
the nature and quality of the services relatable thereto, is
not discernible on the face of the records. As the
qualifications mandated for the in-service candidates
would reveal, the earlier norms of eligibility, in the
alternative, have been retained for them. As the in-service
(4 of 4) [CW-6717/2020]
candidates have been rendering their services since
before the amendment, this initiative on the part of the
respondents stands to logic. The petitioners, as
contenders for direct recruitment, cannot claim parity or
equivalence with the in-service candidate in this regard.
The plea of discrimination between the direct recruits and
promotees before the induction of the former in service, is
wholly misplaced.
The contention that the case of the petitioners ought to be
considered, even if they are not eligible in terms of 2013
Rules for direct recruitment only because the vacancies
exist, also does not commend for acceptance. It would be
open for the petitioners to submit an appropriate
representation before the concerned respondent authority
seeking such appropriate relief(s).
In all, we see no merit in the challenge. The petition is
devoid of substance and is dismissed. The stay application
also stands rejected."
In the result this petition is also dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Anil Kumar Goyal /BMG/12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
