Ms Renu Jangir vs State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4149 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18383/2016

Ms. Renu Jangir D/o Shri Sanwar Mal Jangir, Village And Post
Nangal Nathusar, Ward No. 10, Via Mundru, Tehsil Shrimadhopur,
District Sikar Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State     Of    Rajasthan         Through          Secretary,    Rajasthan
       Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Boar,
       Durgapura, Jaipur
2.     Rajasthan Para Medical Council, G-1, Kishan Bhawan, Lal
       Kothi, Jaipur Through Registrar
3.     Post     Graduate       Institute       Of    Medical      Education   And
       Research, Chandigarh- 160012 Through Registrar
4.     Director Adm. Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of
       Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
       Jaipur
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Kamlesh Sharma Mr. Akshit Gupta Mr. Harendra Neel Ms. Pragya Seth Ms. Sarah Sharma Mr. Pukhraj Chawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC Mr. Sandeep Taneja with Mr. Kartikey Sharma Ms. Vivek Tyagi, Dy. G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order

Reserved on 29/04/2022 Pronounced on 27/ 05 /2022

1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers

which reads as under:-

(2 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

"I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent no. 1 may kindly be directed to take offline application form for the aforesaid vacancy without asking for registration no. in Rajasthan para medical Council.

II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to consider the application form for registration after considering the recognition of the institute (PGI Chandigarh) as same is constituted after Gazette notification and accordingly issue the registration no on priority basis expeditiously looking to the fact of the case.

IV. any other appropriate writ, order or direction, beneficial to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The facts of the case are that on 10.10.2016 an

advertisement was issued for 1025 posts of Assistant

Radiographer in Medical and Health Department and the petitioner

applied for the same. The eligibility and educational qualifications

at the time of submitting application form, by the cut off date,

read as follows-:

"6. ik=rk ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %& vkosnu i= izLrqr djrs le;] vkosnd dh fuEufyf[kr ;ksX;rk,a gksuh pkfg, %& Dze la in dk uke ,o ain 'kS{kf.kd ,oa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk dksM 1 Lkgk;d jsfM;ksxzkQj Senior Secondary in Science with either (in dksM 01) Biology or mathematics or its equivalent with Radiography course passed from an institute recognized by the Rajasthan State Government/ Central Government / Rajasthan Para Medical Council.

And Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council And Working knowledge of Hindi Written in

(3 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthan Culture.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

last date for submitting fee and online application was extended

from 24.11.2016 to 24.12.2016. It is further submitted that

petitioner passed Senior Secondary Examination with Biology in

the year 2012, and as per 'Result-cum-Detailed Marks Certificate'

dated 05.11.2016, she cleared her 'Bachelor of Science in Medical

Tech. (Radio diagnosis Imaging) Part-III (final year) exam' held in

August, 2016 from 'Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education &

Research, Chandigarh' (in short "PGI") and a provisional degree

was also issued to her on 29.10.2016. It is further submitted that,

as registration with Rajasthan Para Medical Council (in short

"RPMC") was one of the pre requisite qualification/eligibility as

specified in the advertisement, the petitioner applied for her

registration on 05.12.2016, which was rejected vide order dated

16.12.2016 with the reasons that the petitioner had not enclosed

document regarding recognition of the institution from where she

had acquired the provisional degree, even though PGI, Chandigarh

is an Institute established by Central Government under the Act

passed by Parliament of India (i.e. Post Graduate Institute and

Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966.) As a

result of such rejection, the petitioner was not allowed to

participate in the selection process and it is in this background

that the present writ petition was filed.

4. It is important to note at this juncture, as pointed out

by the respondent, that during the pendency of writ petition, on

04.01.2017 an interim order was passed as a result of which the

(4 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

application form of the petitioner was accepted and she was

allowed to participate in the selection process in terms of

advertisement No.10/2016 dated 10.10.2016. It is also submitted

by the respondents that on 30.05.2019, the Rajasthan Para

Medical Council awarded the petitioner Certificate of Registration

in terms of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act,

2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents

that, in terms of Hon'ble court's order, the petitioner was allowed

to participate in the selection process and petitioner's documents

were also verified on 26.02.2017, but in terms of the

advertisement, candidates were required to possess requisite

qualification including eligibility and Registration with the RPMC,

on or before the filing of the online application form (i.e.

24.12.2016) and at that time the petitioner was not possessing

the requisite Registration Certificate from RPMC. It is an admitted

fact that the registration was only issued to the petitioner, by the

RPMC in 2019 and therefore, for non filing of the requisite

documents by the cut off date, as required under the

advertisement and under the rules, the petitioner was found not

eligible. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondents that new selection process, vide advertisement in the

year 2020, has taken place and it is admitted that the petitioner

has also applied in the new advertisement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon judgments of this court in S.B. Civil Writs

No.11705/2015 titled as Jitendra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. B.D.M.L

Shikshan Sansthan and in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

(5 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

No.286/2021 wherein he has submitted that the advertisement

envisaged a co-related process of recruitment and registration and

for wrongful denial of registration, on part of the respondent, the

petitioner should not suffer and the act of denying registration

should not be considered as an impediment, at any stage, even if

the advertisement was issued way back in 2016. He has further

placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.8717/2015 titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors. wherein he

submits that even if the advertisement was issued way back in

2016, the court at this stage can grant appropriate relief as

prayed for, especially in the light of interim order dated

04.01.2017 passed by this court. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that in similar situations, co-ordinate

Bench & Division Bench of this Court have granted benefits to

similarly situated persons.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed

reliance on judgments reported in Chairman and Managing

Director, Food Corporation of India Vs. Jagdish Balram

Bahira reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670, Ranjeet Singh Kardam

Vs. Sanjeev Kumar reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 448 and

Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway

reported in (2019) 12 SCC 798 on the issue that if the posts are

lying vacant at a later stage, or even if posts are abolished, writ

court can issue directions for appointment, if arbitrariness is made

out.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

relied upon S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9429/2021 titled as Rai

(6 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. & D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.252/2019 titled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Zaiba &

Ors., wherein it is submitted that, if the registration required in

the eligibility and educational qualification is not submitted on or

before the cut off date, then the candidate is found to be

ineligible. He has submitted that after considering the same

advertisement in the very same circumstance, this Hon'ble Court

in Zaiba & Ors. (supra) dismissed the claim of persons, who

were on the same footing as that of petitioner.

8. This court has heard the arguments advanced by

respective counsels, scanned the records of the writ petition and

considered the judgments cited at bar.

9. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that

advertisement was issued on 10.10.2016 for the post of

Radiographer, wherein qualifications were duly prescribed in

paragraph 6 (supra), wherein it was mandatory on the part of the

applicants/petitioners to hold registration with RPMC on the date

of application or till the cut off date. The cut off date in the given

case was extended till 24.12.2016. It is an admitted case of the

petitioner that till 24.12.2016, she was not registered with RPMC

and for want of document with regard to recognition of the

institute i.e. Post Graduate Institute ('PGI'), Chandigarh, vide

order dated 16.12.2016 (annexure-6), registration application of

the petitioner was not considered and it was canceled in terms of

Rajasthan Para Medical Council Regulation, 2014. It has also come

on record that registration with RPMC was issued by respondent

No.2 in the year 2019. It was also admitted by the respective

counsels, during the course of argument, that the petitioner has

(7 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

filed subsequent application in the advertisement in the year 2020

for the same post. In this background, learned counsel for the

respondent Mr. Sandeep Taneja has submitted that the Division

Bench of this court has considered the very same issue in Zaiba &

Ors. (supra) and held that:

"21. We are firmly of the opinion that in the instant case, since, the process of selection adopted under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 is different and not covered by the process of selection contemplated under proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965, in absence of any other provision in the Rules prescribing a cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate, the appointed date for the purpose of eligibility criteria shall be the date as prescribed in the advertisement calling for applications and thus, the candidates who had already acquired the requisite academic qualification/professional qualification and registration with the RPMC alone were entitled to apply for the recruitment to the post.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the reference date for acquiring the eligibility qualification to the date of counseling/verification of documents by reading something in proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965, which is not there."

10. On perusal of the dictum of the Hon'ble court's order

this court finds that in the same advertisement, dated

10.10.2016, the candidates/applicants were found to be ineligible

because they did not possess the registration with Rajasthan Para

Medical Council ('RPMC') before the cutoff date. The criteria of cut

off date was maintained by the Hon'ble court. Applying the said

(8 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

ratio in the given case, it is an admitted position that registration

was secured by the petitioner in the year 2019 and before the cut

off date, i.e. 24.12.2016, the eligibility condition was not fulfilled.

It is submitted by the petitioner that she made a prayer for

expeditious registration in the present petition. The said prayer,

during the pendency of this petition, was already honored in the

year 2019 but by the said date, the cut off date was over. The

reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Jitendra

Sharma & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of Anil Vishnoi &

Ors. (supra) are qua the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 and

12.06.2020 respectively and not pertaining to the advertisement

dated 10.10.2016. Hence, the said judgments being contrary on

facts and under different advertisement and different issues are

not applicable. At this point of time, it is noteworthy to mention

that in Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9429/2021 this court, while dealing with similar situation,

has held that when the stipulation in advertisements are very

specific, wherein, the requirement of registration with Rajasthan

Nursing Council was compulsory, before the cutoff date, then such

stipulations have to be adhered to strictly by every

applicant/candidate. The Hon'ble Court considered the judgments

of Anil Vishnoi (supra) and made a distinction thereof and held

that, the candidates who did not fulfill the specific eligibility as

mentioned in the advertisement, were not eligible.

11. In the present case also, admittedly, the petitioner was

not in a position to fulfill the requisite eligibility on or before the

cut off date. Therefore, the rejection of petitioners' candidature

was in sync with stipulation made in the advertisement and the

(9 of 9) [CW-18383/2016]

law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zaiba

& Ors. (supra) pertaining to eligibility under Rajasthan Medical &

Health Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1965 ("Rules of 1965) and the

same does not call for any interference. The judgment cited by

learned counsel for the petitioner on account of delay and on

account of vacancies being available are of no use as the condition

No.6 of the advertisement along with provisions of Rules of 1965

were not fulfilled.

12 For the reasons stated above, the writ petition does not

deserve to be allowed and is, therefore, dismissed. Interim orders

passed by this court are also disposed of in above terms, along

with pending applications.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

JKP/s-23

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)