Rajasthan High Court
Kum. Snehalata Sharma Daughter Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5971/2022
Kum. Snehalata Sharma Daughter Of Ram Laxman Sharma Wife
Of Narendra Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of
Chanderiyo Ki Gali, Ward No. 2, District Bundi - 323001 (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.) 302005.
2. Director (Non Gazetted) Medical And Health Services,
Sawasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
302005.
3. Additional Director (Gazetted) Medical And Health
Services, Sawasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.) 302005.
4. Chief Medical Officer and Member Secretary, R.M.R.S.
Bundi(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Iliyas Khan
For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG
Mr. Vivek Tyagi, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
28/07/2022
Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue
involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in
the matter of Bhawna Lohar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 1535/2022) wherein on 24.05.2022 following
order was passed;
"This petition along with a bunch of 20
writ petitions, enlisted in the appended
(2 of 4) [CW-5971/2022]
Schedule give rise to same issue, which
shall be treated to be part and parcel of
the order instant, are decided by a
common order.
These writ petitions have been filed by
the petitioners, who are candidates at the
recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant
vide notification dated 29.5.2018.
It is inter alia indicated in the writ
petitions that the qualification inter alia
provided that those having minimum 3
years' experience of working as
Laboratory Assistant / Lab Technician in
State Government Hospitals on contract
basis or through Service Provider Agency,
shall also be eligible.
The petitioners being eligible based on
the said eligibility indicated after
obtaining the requisites from the
concerned officers, filed applications. The
certificates were valid for eligibility as
well as for award of bonus marks as
provided in the advertisement.
However, the respondents apparently
based on material, which was collected by
the respondents ex parte, have not
accepted the certificates produced by the
petitioners of having worked on the post
of Lab Technician / Lab Assistant and
treating them as having worked on post
different from the said post i.e. as Lab
Attendant / Ward-boy / Cleaner / Helper
has held them ineligible and have not
awarded bonus marks.
Various submissions have been made that
in the petitions seeking to question the
action of the respondents in rejecting the
certificates produced by the petitioners
and claiming that they are entitled to be
treated as qualified and for award of
bonus marks based on the said
certificates.
A response to the writ petition initially
was filed by the respondents seeking to
indicate that the respondents after
looking to the nature of certificates
produced by the petitioners, have sought
specific inputs from the authorities, which
have issued the certificates based on an
Eleven Pointer issued to the said
authorities and as the said authorities
have disclosed facts in the Eleven Pointer,
which indicates that the experience of the
petitioners is not that of Lab Technician /
Lab Assistant, they have been held as
ineligible.
Today learned counsel appearing for the
State has made an additional submission
by referring to the Rajasthan Medical and
(3 of 4) [CW-5971/2022]
Health Subordinate Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2021, that in terms
of the amendment made by notification
dated 9.12.2021, which has came into
effect from 23.5.2018 and essentially
pertains to the advertisement dated
29.5.2018, the requirement for eligibility
inter alia includes diploma in Medical
Laboratory Technology even from the un-
recognized institution besides the
experience on the post of Laboratory
Technician or Laboratory Assistant.
Further submissions have been made that
the authorities which have issued the
certificates were specifically required to
indicate the nature of duties performed
by the candidates based on the job
responsibilities of various posts, which
were supplied to them and then come to
a conclusion as on what post, the
experience was gained by the candidates
and based on the said material, the
decision has been taken, which cannot be
faulted. However, it is not denied that the
issue has been decided by the authorities
holding the petitioners as not qualified
without affording any opportunity of
hearing to them and in teeth of the
certificates issued by the very same
authorities, who have responded to the
Eleven Pointer.
In the circumstances of the case, where
admittedly the respondents have relied
on certain material, which has been
collected ex parte supplied by the same
authorities, who have issued the
certificates favouring the petitioners
making them eligible for the appointment
in terms of the advertisement dated
29.5.2018, which certificate is sought to
be displaced based on such material, the
said action could not have been taken by
the respondents without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
and/or at least calling upon them to
respond to the proposed action on their
part by disclosing the material / Eleven
Pointer response received by them,
therefore, the said action of the
respondents is in gross violation of
principles of natural justice.
In view of the above fact situation,
wherein, admittedly the petitioners have
not been afforded any opportunity of
hearing before the respondents have
come to the conclusion based on the
material received by them disqualifying
the petitioners for the post of Laboratory
Assistant, the action of the respondents
(4 of 4) [CW-5971/2022]
in this regard cannot be approved.
Consequently, the petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed. The action of the
respondents in deciding the issue without
affording any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners, is set aside. The
respondents would now disclose the
material to the petitioners and on the
petitioners making a representation in
this regard, they would decide the
eligibility of the petitioners / the validity
of the certificate issued to them and
based on their decision, would proceed
further in the matter.
The Director (Non-Gazetted) would
disclose the material within a period of 15
days to the petitioners, response /
representation, if any, be made by the
petitioners within a period of two weeks
thereafter to the Director (Non-Gazetted)
and he would pass appropriate orders on
the same within a period of four weeks
thereafter. The petitioners would be free
to take appropriate proceedings, in case,
they have any grievance qua the decision
taken by the respondents in this regard.
The respondents shall not conclude the
recruitment before passing of the final
orders as indicated hereinbefore.
Insofar as, the issue sought to be raised
by the respondents based on the
notification dated 9.12.2021 is
concerned, the said issue is kept open.
In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is
disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of Bhawna Lohar (supra).
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /245
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
