Sunil Rawat vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10366 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 587/2021

Sunil Rawat S/o Shri Jagdish Rawat, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Behind Nagar Nigam Rawaton Mohalla, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Rishabh Tayal
                                   Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajat Arora for
                                   Mr. K.S.Rajpurohhit, AAG



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    Judgment


16/08/2022

The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the

appellant for assailing the judgment dated 02.08.2021 passed by

learned Single Bench of this court whereby the writ petition

seeking directions upon the respondents to consider his

candidature under OBC (NCL) category for appointment on the

post of Nurse Grade-II was dismissed.

(2 of 6) [SAW-587/2021]

The brief facts of the case are that the Director, Medical and

Health Services, Rajasthan issued an Advertisement bearing no.

231 dated 30.05.2018 inviting applications for recruitment to the

post of Nurse Grade-II under the provisions of Rajasthan Medical

and Health Service Rules, 1965. The appellant being eligible for

recruitment on the said post, on 02.07.2018, submitted his online

application form as OBC, (NCL) candidate. The appellant was

called for document verification on 18.07.2019. At that time, the

appellant produced OBC (NCL) certificate dated 18.07.2019. The

OBC (NCL) certificate was not found to be in conformity with the

conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 30.05.2018.

Consequently, the name of the appellant was not included in the

final select list of Nurse Grade-II published by the respondents on

28.04.2020. The writ petition filed by the appellant with a prayer

to treat him in OBC (NCL) category came to be dismissed by the

learned Single Bench on the ground that the appellant did not

possess OBC (NCL) certificate in consonance with the terms and

conditions of the Advertisement dated 30.05.2018 even at the

time of document verification.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rishabh Tayal

submitted that the appellant was in possession of OBC (NCL)

certificates dated 14.02.2002, 14.06.2010, 04.07.2013 and

18.07.2019. The appellant had applied for renewal of OBC (NCL)

certificate on 28.06.2018 but the same was not issued till the date

of document verification. The appellant therefore, submitted an

affidavit affirming that he belonged to the OBC (NCL) category

and he will submit the OBC (NCL) certificate as soon as it is issued

by the competent authority. It was further argued that the

(3 of 6) [SAW-587/2021]

appellant had obtained higher marks than the cut-off marks in the

OBC (NCL) category and number of seats for the post in question

were lying vacant. Therefore, respondents should have provided

him appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II. Reliance was

placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 (Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi

Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors.)

Per Contra, Shri Rajat Arora, learned counsel representing

the respondents, submitted that the general condition No.13(i) &

(iv) of the advertisement which reads as below, clearly indicates

that the certificate of Backward Category/Most Backward Category

must have been issued in the previous one year from the last date

of furnishing the application form:-

"13-lkekU; funsZ"k %&

(i) vU; fiNM+k [email protected] fiNM+k oxZ (MBC) dk uohure izek.k i= vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk ls 1 o'kZ iwoZ rd dh vof/k esa jktLFkku jkT; ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izi= esa tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg,] ftlesa fØehys;[email protected]&fØehys;j dh izfof'B Li'Vr% vafdr gksuh pkfg,A bu oxksZa ds fØehys;j vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; ugha gSA lkekftd U;k; ,oa vf/kdkfjrk foHkkx ds fn"kk funsZ"k la[;k F- 11/SC, ST, OBC, SBC/[email protected];k- ,oa vf/k- [email protected]@54159 fnukad [email protected]@15 ds vuqlkj fØehys;j esa ugha gksus laaca/kh izek.k i= ,d o'kZ ds fy;s ekU; gksxkA

(iv) vkosnu i= izLrqr djus ds i"pkr~ dksbZ izek.k [email protected] u rks tksM+k tkosxk vkSj uk gh la"kksf/kr fd;k tkosxkA"

The appellant filed the certificates dated 14.02.2002,

14.06.2010, 04.07.2013 and 18.07.2019 showing his status as

OBC (NCL) candidate.

Evidently thus, the appellant was not entitled to be

considered in the OBC (NCL) category because the certificates

submitted by him did not affirm his status for previous one year

with reference to the last date of submission of the online

(4 of 6) [SAW-587/2021]

application forms. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, could the

respondents consider the appellant to be an OBC (NCL) candidate.

Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy at

hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered

in the case of Kailash Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.

S.A.W. No.279/2020), wherein, it was held as below:-

"14. Indisputably, in the advertisement issued in pursuance whereof the appellant applied for appointment to the post of Nurse Gr.II, it was specifically mentioned that the candidates applying in the category of Other Backward Class/ More Backward Class must produce the certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Rajasthan in the prescribed form, within one year from the last date of submission of the application form and thus, the certificate dated 13.6.13 produced by the appellant for recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 30.5.18 was not valid. Merely because, the appellant had applied in OBC-NCL Category, his candidature could not have been considered in the said category in absence of the required certificate. It is true that the respondents have considered three years old certificate while preparing final merit list but then, such consideration has been made only in cases where the candidates have fulfilled the condition in this regard incorporated in the relevant instructions. It is not the case of the appellant that he had filed an affidavit as prescribed for consideration of the certificate produced. Moreover, even otherwise, the certificate produced by the appellant could not have been considered because it was old beyond three years. Keeping in view the unequivocal condition incorporated in the advertisement, the appellant was knowing fully well that the certificate produced by him for consideration of his

(5 of 6) [SAW-587/2021]

candidature in OBC-NCL Category is not valid but he did not make any attempt to obtain the requisite certificate till the publication of the final merit list by the respondents. In the considered opinion of this Court, where the status of a candidate belonging to OBC-NCL Category is decided on the basis of financial/social status, the condition incorporated regarding the certificate to be produced in support thereof being not beyond the period of one year from the last date of submission of the application form, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Obviously, many candidates not having the valid certificate might not have even applied for the recruitment to the post and thus, merely because, the appellant has approached this Court, no relaxation can be extended to him."

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

bar and have gone through the material available on record.

In the instant case, the OBC (NCL) certificates dated

14.02.2002, 14.06.2010, 04.07.2013 and 18.07.2019 submitted

by the appellant did not satisfy the Economically Backward criteria

stipulated in clause 13(i) & (iv) of the Advertisement dated

30.05.2018. The aforesaid condition stipulated in the

advertisement is completely just as the financial status (creamy

layer/non-creamy layer) changes year to year due to revision of

income criteria.

It is a settled proposition of law that candidature and

eligibility of an incumbent is required to be decided as on the date

of advertisement/last date for submission of the applications

unless otherwise stipulated. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the

case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India, reported in

(2007) 3 SCC 956 held that if the Rules and the recruitment

(6 of 6) [SAW-587/2021]

notification are silent, the last date for considering the

qualification would be the last date for submission of the

application forms. This court in case of Vinod Kumar Dhaker v.

State of Rajasthan (D.B. S.A.W. No. 509/2022) decided on

06.07.2022 while dealing with such stipulations in recruitment

notification held that the primary purpose which these stipulations

serve is enabling the selecting body to identify the number of

candidates constituting the field of eligibility. The judgment relied

upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case Ram

Kumar Gijroya (supra) is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case as no condition akin to the

condition number 13(i) & (iv) of the advertisement dated

30.05.2018 was present in the aforementioned judgment.

For the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not find any

merits in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                        (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    154-KshamaD/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)