Rajasthan High Court
Ravi Singh S/O Shri Narendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 802/2021
Ravi Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
151, Gandhi Nagar, Orai, Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh - 285001.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its
Chairman, Situated At Agriculture Management Institute
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur, (Raj.) - 302018.
3. Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Through Its President
Situated At G-1, Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Girraj Prasad on behalf of
Mr. Mahendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
20/12/2021
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 13.08.2021 passed in writ petition
No.8153/2021.
The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board had advertised
vacancies to the post of ECG technicians for which as per the
recruitment rules the eligibility criteria were XIIth standard pass
with diploma in ECG technician. The petitioner has a qualification
of XIIth standard passed and diploma in cardiology technician
which course he pursued in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The
(2 of 3) [SAW-802/2021]
petitioner applied for the post in question but was not considered
eligible. He approached the learned Single Judge contending that
the nomenclature of the diploma in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
are different but the courses are identical. In other words the case
of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was and still
before us is that the diploma in cardiology technician is equivalent
to the diploma in ECG technician which is the requirement under
the recruitment rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
petition on the ground that the question of equivalence can be
decided only by the employing agency and not by the court
against which this appeal has been filed.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having
perused the documents on record we find that at no stage the
petitioner had approached any authority in writing pointing out
that he holds a qualification which is equivalent to that prescribed
under the recruitment rules. Though the petitioner has been
registered by the Para Medical Council of Rajasthan, that by itself
would not establish the equivalence of the qualifications. It is an
exercise which only the recruiting agency duly assisted by the
experts in the field can undertake. Once such decision is taken
unless it is shown to be ex facie, arbitrary or illegal, the court in
exercise of the powers of the judicial review would not interfere.
In any case such exercise has to be undertaken at the first
instance by the authorities and not by the court. Since the
petitioner failed to even approach the authority by projecting his
case that his educational qualifications are equivalent to those
prescribed for the post in question under the recruitment rules,
(3 of 3) [SAW-802/2021]
this appeal cannot be entertained. The petitioner was not allowed
to appear in the examination and has therefore missed the bus
atleast so far as this recruitment process is concerned. For the
future it would be open for the petitioner to approach the proper
authority by producing necessary material in support of his
contention that qualification of cardiology technician is equivalent
to what the recruitment rules have prescribed for the post in
question.
With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR-N.Gandhi/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
