Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7516/2021
Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Meethana District Kannauj (U.P.)
----Petitioner
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, Sawasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7497/2021
Deepak Singh S/o Shri Kamlesh Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Jhotana, Tehsil Jakhniya, District
Gazipur (U.P.).
----Petitioner
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
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7498/2021
Abhay Pratap S/o Shri Ramdarash Bharti, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village Yusufpur Khabra, Tehsil Jakhniya, District
Ghazipur (U.P.).
----Petitioner
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
(2 of 5) [CW-7516/2021]
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7501/2021
Rahul Singh S/o Shri Bijendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
House No. 809, Village Gidisi, Salpura, District Aligarh (U.P.)
----Petitioner
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, Sawasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7508/2021
Shrish Chandra Srivastava S/o Shri Girish Chandra, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Rauta Chauraha, Gandhinagar, District Basti (U.P.)
----Petitioner
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, Sawasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K.S.
Rajpurohit, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
14/07/2021
1. By way of the present bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners
have approached this Court with the grievance that regardless of
the fact that on the date of document verification, they did
possess requisite certificate of registration with the Rajasthan Para
(3 of 5) [CW-7516/2021]
Medical Council, the respondents have not considered their
candidature and have recommended names of the persons, who
have secured less marks than the petitioners.
2. Precise facts appertain for the present purposes are that the
petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Radiographer pursuant
to advertisement dated 12.06.2020, issued by the respondent -
Rajasthan State Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as
"the Selection Board").
3. The last date of submitting application form was 30.07.2020,
the petitioners had submitted their application form prior to the
last date and they have secured more marks than the cut-off
marks of their category.
4. Mr. Manoj Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioners inviting
Court's attention towards the press release dated 11.11.2020,
submitted that the respondent - Selection Board by issuing the
press release required all the candidates to appear by 25.11.2020
along with requisite registration certificate issued by the Rajasthan
Para Medical Council and on the said date i.e. on 25.11.2020 all
the petitioners appeared and produced proof of their registration
with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, yet the respondents have
illegally rejected their candidature.
5. Mr. Vineet Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the
Selection Board submitted that true it is, that the petitioners have
secured more marks than the cut-off marks of their respective
category and that the petitioners did possess requisite certificate
of registration on the fixed date i.e. 25.11.2020, but argued that
they had not applied for registration before the Rajasthan Para
(4 of 5) [CW-7516/2021]
Medical Council prior to the last date of submitting application
form, which was 30.07.2020.
6. Inviting Court's attention towards the note appended with
Clause No.6. (Educational Qualifications for Assistant
Radiographer) of the advertisement, learned counsel argued that
it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that the candidate,
who is desirous of appointment should have applied for
registration by the last date of submitting application form.
7. The said note appended with the Clause No.6 reads thus:
"uksV%& vH;FkhZ vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk jktLFkku iSjk esfMdy dkSfUly
esa iathd`r gksuk pkfg;sA fdUrq fjV ;kfpdk [email protected] eatw
cuke jkT; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj HkrhZ
gsrq vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk rd iath;u ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa
vkosnd dks iath;u gsrq vfUre frfFk rd jktLFkku iSjk esfMdy
dkSfUly esa vkosnu djuk gksxk ,oa nLrkost lR;kiu ds le;
iath;u izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA"
8. Mr. Bohra, learned counsel was not in a position to refute the
contention raised by Mr. Sanadhya that all the petitioners had
failed to apply for registration prior to the last date of submitting
application form i.e. 30.07.2020.
9. In view of the note aforesaid and the settled legal position
that the eligibility of a candidate has to be seen on the last date of
submitting application form and considering that requirement of
registration is generally sine-qua-non for appointment, this Court
does not find any substance in these petitions. The action of
respondents in considering candidature of those who have applied
for registration by the last date of submitting application form is
an advantage granted to them so that the eligible candidates can
furnish proof of their registration at the time of document
verification but a person who had not even applied for registration
(5 of 5) [CW-7516/2021]
while submitting application form cannot claim any further
indulgence.
10. Since, the petitioners have failed to apply for registration by
the last date of submitting application form, this Court is of the
clear opinion that they are not eligible or entitled to be appointed
on the post of Assistant Radiographer pursuant to recruitment
notification dated 12.06.2020.
11. As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid and in light of the
Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Raj. & Ors. Vs.
Zaiba & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.252/2019, dated
24.04.2020, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
12. Stay petitions also stand dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
21-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
