Madan Mohan Arya Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2544 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/2021

Madan Mohan Arya Son Of Shri Mangilal Arya, Aged About 46
Years, Resident Of B-210-211, Paldi Meena, J.d.a. Colony, Agra
Road, District Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
       (Admn.), Medical And Health Department (Group-2),
       Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.     Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department,
       Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3.     Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan State Health Assurance
       Agency, (Medical Health And Family Welfare Services),
       R.t.d.c. Head Quarter, (Swagat Hotel Campus), Railway
       Station, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

30/06/2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has done BUMS i.e Bachelor in Unani Medicine & Surgery and

submits that as the qualification for District Programme Co-

ordinator-MMSCBY mentioned in the advertisement is

MBBS/BHMS/BAMS, the petitioner's qualification also should be

considered as he is Bachelor in one of the alternate medicines

similar to homeopathy.

This Court in SBCWP No.10342/2020: Raghvendra

Agarwal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. considered

(2 of 3) [CW-6499/2021]

the similar issue where the petitioners therein demanded that

their qualification of Homeopathy, Pharmaceutical and Unani

should be included for the purpose of appointment as Community

Health Officers and this court reached to the conclusion as under:-

"(20) In the opinion of this Court, a judicial review of an advertisement issued by the State would be limited to the aspect as to whether the said advertisement issued by the authority is in accordance with the rules laid down by the concerned State authority or the appointing authority."

This Court rejected the contention relying upon the

judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukul

Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in (2020) 4 SCC

86 and in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz

Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 wherein the

Supreme Court has held as under:-

"26. The prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine."

Thus, it is apparent that this Court would not substitute any

educational qualification which has been laid down by the State as

it is an exclusive domain of the employer to lay down the

qualification for a particular post. The petitioner's claim for

equivalence qualification cannot be a subject matter of judicial

review and this court does not have the expertise to hold a

(3 of 3) [CW-6499/2021]

particular qualification as equivalent to that of another

qualification.

Keeping in view thereto, I am not inclined to entertain this

writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

NITIN /40

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)