Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalit Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12891/2020
1. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Post- Mandal, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali,
306115, Rajasthan.
2. Khushveer Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Post- Phulad Via Ranwas, District- Pali,
306023, Rajasthan.
3. Ritu Kumari D/o Shri Ishwar Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o House No.- 3613, Sector 9A, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Medical And Health Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Coordinator/convener, Medical Officer (Medical)
Recruitment Examination-2020, Rajasthan University Of
Health Science-18 Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap
Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Principal, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
6. Rajasthan Medical Council, Government Dispensary
Campus, Near Sahkar Bhawan, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta
Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
(2 of 5) [CW-12891/2020]
28/01/2021
IA No.2/2021:
1. Having regard to the facts and considering the submissions
made, the application for preponement of the date is allowed.
2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.
SBCWP No.12891/2020:
1. Petitioners have completed their medical course (MBBS) from
Tajikistan and after returning to India they have done one year's
internship, without which they were denied registration.
2. Meanwhile the respondent No. 3 and 4 issued advertisement
dated 15.10.2020 for recruitment to the post of Medical Officer.
In pursuance whereof, the petitioners submitted their application
forms before the cutoff date i.e. 29.10.2020.
3. When the result was declared, petitioners did not find their
names in select list despite securing higher marks than the cut off.
4. On enquires petitioners were informed that their candidature
was rejected as they did not get themselves registered by the last
date of submitting application form.
5. Petitioners nos.1 and 3 have got their certificate of
registration on 24.11.2020 and 25.11.2020 respectively from
Rajasthan Medical Council, while the petitioner no.2 does not have
the registration with the Rajasthan Medical Council even till today.
6. While conceding that petitioner No.2 does not have
registration with Rajasthan Medical Council, learned counsel for
petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 and 3 have already
acquired educational qualification before submission of their
application forms and merely because the registration was done
after the cut off date, their candidature cannot be rejected.
(3 of 5) [CW-12891/2020]
7. Mr. Rajpurohit invited Court's attention towards Section 31 of
the Rajasthan Medical Council Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') and argued that Section 31 requires a person to hold
a certificate of registration before being appointed, as such the
respondents are bound to offer them appointment because when
the appointment orders are/were issued, petitioner No.1 and 3
were having registration.
8. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta and Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue
involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of
Jaipur Bench rendered in the case of Pragyan Bansal Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.11435/2020), decided on
12.10.2020, wherein this Court has held that for the purpose of
seeking appointment, a candidate is required to complete his
internship before submitting application form.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the judgment of Pragyan Bansal
(supra) per-se does not dis-entitle the petitioners from being
considered for appointment on the post of Medical Officer,
inasmuch as the petitioners have completed their internship and
had even applied for registration before the Rajasthan Medical
Council prior to furnishing application form.
10. The hurdle in petitioners' way of getting appointment is that
their registration with Rajasthan Medical Council is on a date
posterior to the last date of submitting application forms viz.,
29.10.2020.
11. Argument of Mr. Rajpurohit so vehemently made on the basis
of Section 31 of the Act, is not tenable. A look at Section 31 shows
that a person is not competent to hold the post of Medical Officer
unless he possesses a certificate of registration with Rajasthan
(4 of 5) [CW-12891/2020]
Medical Council. The respondents cannot be expected to consider
candidature of a person, who does not have a valid registration
certificate on the date of submitting application form and keep
waiting for him until he gets himself registered.
12. This is precisely what has happened in the present case -
two of the petitioners have got registration certificates while one
(petitioner No.2) could not. If the argument of the petitioners is
accepted as advanced, respondents were obliged to offer
appointment even to petitioner No.2. Thereafter, when he would
come to join on the post, he would have showed a flat face, for
not having registered with the Council.
13. Petitioners' contention that condition of having a registration
on the date of submitting application form mentioned in the
advertisement is contrary to Regulation 31 cannot be accepted. If
for adminstrative convenience the respondents have given such
stipulation, it cannot be held to be illegal or even arbitrary.
14. In view of the clear condition in the advertisement dated
15.10.2020, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection
of petitioners' candidature cannot be faulted with. It is settled
position of law that a candidate is required to fulfill criteria of
educational qualification and other eligibility conditions on the last
date of submitting application form unless the terms of
advertisement or the rules provide otherwise.
15. That apart, petitioners have applied in spite of such condition
and have challenged it only after rejection of their candidature.
Challenge to such stipulation cannot be entertained at this stage,
as there may be many such candidates, who have not even
applied for the post considering themselves to be ineligible for not
having registration with the Medical Council. Giving indulgence to
(5 of 5) [CW-12891/2020]
the petitioners would be iniquitous to the candidates, who have
not applied for the post.
16. As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid, this Court does not
find any substance in the present writ petition, for which, it is
hereby dismissed.
17. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
73-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
