Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Sunder Saini And Ors vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1863/2011
1. Shyam Sunder Saini, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Jai Chand
Lal, by caste Mali, resident of Sardarshahar, District Churu
(Raj.)
2. Rajesh Kumar Saini, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Sumer Mal
Saini, by caste Mali, resident of Sardarshahar, District Churu
(Raj.)
3. Purshottam Das Swami, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri
Bajrang Das Swami, by caste Swami, resident of Sardarshahar,
District Churu (Raj.)
4. Sanjay Dudi, aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Sukhram, by
caste Jat, resident of Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)
5. Nikhilesh Bika, aged 22 years, S/o Arjun Singh, B/C. Rajput,
R/o Sardarshar, District Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan , through Secretary, Animal Husbandry
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director, Directorate, Animal Husbandry
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University
Sardarshahar, Churu through its Registrar.
5. Exams Coordinator, Pashuchikitsa and Pashuvigyan
Vishavidyalaya, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanker Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
(Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 08:49:32 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Judgment
1st February, 2021
PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for
following relief:
"a) The applicability of Rules of 2008 with retrospective date
i.e. 1-4-2008 unconstitutional and be declared ultravires and
the amended rules be made applicable to candidates who
took admission after 6-8-2008.
b) The condition as mentioned in the advertisement dated
27.1.2011 (Annex.5) with regard to the approval of the
course by the State Government be quashed and set aside.
c) The direction be issued to treat the petitioners eligible for
the post of Live Stock Assistant without there being any
formal approval from the State Govt. or in alternative the
State Govt. be directed to grant approval with immediate
effect.
d) The candidature of the petitioners may not be rejected on
the ground that the diploma obtained by the petitioners from
the respondent University has not been granted formal
approval by the State Govt.
e) The petitioners may further be considered for
appointment on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuance
of the notification dated 27.1.2011.
f) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court
consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.
g) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioner."
2. It is noticed that the present writ petition preferred by the
petitioners was earlier disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide
order dated 15.12.15 in light of Bench decision of this Court in
(3 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
D.B.C.Writ Petition No.6087/08: Balwant Singh vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 30.4.15. The appellant-State
preferred a Miscellaneous Application being 54/16, for recalling
the order stating that the controversy involved in Balwant Singh's
case (supra) was not similar and therefore, the writ petition could
not have been disposed of in light of the said decision. The said
miscellaneous application was dismissed by a coordinate Bench
vide order dated 6.4.16. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred
Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of by the Supreme
Court vide order dated 23.5.17, whereby the appellants were
permitted to move the High Court again and request the High
Court to look into the matter on merits. Accordingly, the State
filed a fresh Miscellaneous Application being No.20/18 before this
Court, which was allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated
8.7.19. The order passed by the coordinate Bench disposing of the
writ petition in light of decision in Balwant Singh's case (supra)
was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original
number.
3. The facts relevant are that the State Government issued an
advertisement dated 27.1.11 inviting applications for recruitment
to the posts of Live Stock Assistant under Rajasthan Animal
Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 ('the Rules of 1977').
The petitioners submitted their applications, however, on
information being sought, the petitioners were apprised that their
applications are likely to be rejected inasmuch as, the diploma in
Animal Husbandry obtained by them is not recognized by the
State Government. The petitioners had obtained the diploma in
Veterinary & Animal Husbandry from the Institute of Advanced
(4 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
Studies in Education University, Sardarshahar, a deemed to be
University, which is not recognized by the State Government.
4. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioners is that the
diploma in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry awarded by the
respondent University is recognized by University Grants
Commission and the Central Government and therefore, the
petitioners cannot be held to be ineligible. Besides, the petitioners
have questioned the legality of the notification dated 6.10.08
issued by the State Government whereby in exercise of the power
conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the
Governor has amended the Rules of 1977 and prescribed the
qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Live Stock as
Senior Secondary or equivalent with the subjects Physics,
Chemistry & Zoology or Garden Agriculture (Agriculture), Animal
Husbandry & Zoology and one or two year training in Live Stock
Assistant from an institute recognized by the State Government.
According to the petitioners, the notification issued is made
effective with retrospective effect and thus, the petitioners who
were otherwise eligible stands debarred from participating in the
recruitment process for the post of Live Stock Assistant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that
it is well settled that the amendment in the Rules governing
recruitment cannot be made effective retrospectively and thus, the
notification issued by the State Government inter alia amending
the eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post of Live Stock
Assistant deserves to be declared ultra vires. Learned counsel
submitted that the notification issued taking away the existing
right is ex facie unconstitutional. Learned counsel submitted that
(5 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
by way of impugned notification, the candidates who have
acquired the certificate or diploma in Animal Husbandry during the
period from 2001 to 2008 cannot be declared ineligible. Learned
counsel submitted that if approval of the diploma granted by the
respondent-University requires recognition then it cannot be
withheld by the State Government without any reason and
therefore, the State Government deserves to be directed to grant
recognition to the diploma awarded by the respondent-University.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State submitted that it is the prerogative of the
State Government to amend the eligibility qualification provided
for recruitment to any post and nobody can claim a vested right to
claim appointment on the basis of the qualification acquired by
him inasmuch as, the eligibility of a candidate for recruitment to
any post has to be determined on the basis of the eligibility
prescribed under the Rules at the time of recruitment process
undertaken. Learned AAG submitted that the qualification acquired
by the petitioners from an institution not recognized by the
Government cannot be considered to be valid qualification.
Learned AAG submitted that there is nothing on record suggesting
that the qualification acquired by the petitioners is recognized by
the Central Government. That apart, it is submitted that the
petitioners were not eligible inasmuch as they have not passed the
Senior Secondary Examinations with the subjects as prescribed
and therefore, they are not eligible to apply for the post of Live
Stock Assistant. Learned AAG submitted that the recruitment
process has already been completed long back and thus, at this
(6 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
stage, the question of considering the petitioners' candidature
does not arise.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners have acquired the alleged
qualification of Certificate in Animal Husbandry in the year 2008
and the Diploma in the year 2009. The recruitment process is
initiated in the year 2011 and thus, if the petitioners' qualifications
of certificate and diploma in Animal Husbandry are treated to be
recognized, the retrospectivity of the amendment in the Rules of
1977, does not affect them adversely in any manner whatsoever
and thus, the question of the legality of the notification qua the
retrospectivity is not required to be gone into by this Court in the
instant petition.
9. It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the employer to
lay down the qualification for recruitment to the posts in service
and the Court cannot inter meddle in such matter exercising the
power of judicial review. The reliance in this regard may be placed
on decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Union of
India : 2007 (11) SCC 599 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand :
2008 (10) SCC 1.
10. It is also equally well settled that the candidate seeking
public employment must possess the requisite qualification
prescribed for the recruitment to the post under the relevant Rules
at the time of recruitment and in absence of any condition
prescribed in the advertisement issued in this regard, as on the
last date for submission of the application form. Any person
acquiring an academic/professional qualification does not make
(7 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
him entitle to claim the public employment as a matter of right
and thus, the contentions raised by the petitioners while
challenging the qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post
of Live Stock Assistant is devoid of any merit.
11. The petitioners are not eligible to participate in the
recruitment process for yet another reason inasmuch as they are
not holding the qualification of Senior Secondary with the subjects
specified. It is pertinent to note that in the writ petition filed there
is no specific challenge to the qualification of Senior Secondary
with the subjects specified. The categorical stand taken by the
respondents in this regard in the reply to the writ petition is not
controverted by the petitioners by filing a counter thereto. Suffice
it to say that even if the qualifications of certificate and diploma
acquired by the petitioners are treated to be recognized, they are
not eligible to participate in the recruitment process.
12. Coming to the question of the recognition of the qualification,
suffice it to say that merely because the petitioners had acquired
the qualification from a deemed to be University, the qualification
cannot be treated to be recognized. Any institution imparting
education in Veterinary and Animal Husbandry must have the
requisite infrastructure to run the courses and must obtain the
recognition in the manner as prescribed. The petition filed does
not contain any details in this regard. There is nothing on record
suggesting that the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Courses run
by the respondent-University have been duly recognized by the
Central Government or the State Government. In any case, if the
qualification acquired by the petitioners is not duly recognized,
they cannot claim participation in the recruitment process merely
(8 of 8) [CW-1863/2011]
on the ground that they have acquired the said qualification from
a deemed to be University. Thus, no directions as prayed for, can
be issued by this Court to the State Government to grant approval
to the certificate and diploma courses in Veterinary & Animal
Husbandry run by the respondent-University.
13. Indisputably, the recruitment process has already been
completed and the selected candidates have been accorded
appointment long back. None of the selected candidates are
impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition and thus, even
otherwise the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be
granted by this Court.
14. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition fails, it is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Vij-35/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
