Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sapna Jatav vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:25608]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1657/2020
1. Sapna Jatav W/o Mukesh Agarwal, Aged About 30 Years,
B/c Agarwal, R/o Pungalpara, Pungaliyon Ki Gali, Inside
City, Jodhpur
2. Neetu Yadav D/o Suvachann Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Plot No.120, Ganesh Nagar, Sangariya Fanta, Jodhpur
3. Sarita D/o Udai Singh Kataniya, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Kataniya, R/o Plot No.63/3, Veer Tejaji Nagar, Salawas
Road, Basani, Ii Phase, Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Medical Health
And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur - 302001, Rajasthan.
2. The Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through The Registrar, B-
39, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director (Training), Medical And Health Services
Directorates, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Joint Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services
Directorates, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
14/08/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
thus:
"(i) That the non-petitioners may kindly
be directed to finalize and issue the final list
on the basis of 12th with ANM average;
(ii) That the non-petitioners may kindly
be directed to withdraw the final list based
on provisional list and on the average of
Xth and ANM and the selection may kindly
[2023:RJ-JD:25608] (2 of 4) [CW-1657/2020]
be directed to finalize on list on the basis of
12th with ANM average;
(iii) Any other appropriate order or
direction which is deemed just, proper and
fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly be also passed in favour of
the petitioner.
(iv) Cost of the petition may kindly be
awarded."
2. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General at the
outset submitted that the issue involved in the present writ
petition has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this
Court by the judgment passed in the case of Arti Vaishnav &
Ors. Vs. State & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13275/2018, decided on 11.07.2019
3. Perused the memo of writ petition including the prayer
clause.
4. In the case of Arti Vaishnav (supra) the Division Bench of
this Court has held thus:
"8.This Court is of the opinion that the
relief claimed by the petitioners in these
proceedings cannot be justly granted. The
mere fact that INC prescribed that in order to
obtain registration as ANM, a candidate has
to clear minimum 12th Standard or Senior
Secondary School Examination as the
minimum educational qualification, per-se
doe not over-right the State's conscious
policy to retain pre-existing edcuational
qualification for the purpose of recruitment to
its posts or its services. In this regard, the
State's explanation that for the moment it
does not wish to prescribe the higher
educational eligibility condition of 12th
Standard having regard to the large number
of registered ANMs, who possessed10th
Standard, which would exclude them from
the choice of employment, looking to it, the
Court cannot characterize it as arbitrary.
In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Para No.22 &23 held as under :
"22. We are in respectful
agreement with the interpretation
which has been placed on the
[2023:RJ-JD:25608] (3 of 4) [CW-1657/2020]
judgment in Jyoti KK in the
subsequent decision in Anita
(supra).The decision in Jyoti KK
turned on the provisions of
Rule10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule,
it would not be permissible to
draw an inference that a higher
qualification necessarily pre-
supposes the acquisition of
another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of
qualifications 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 nopart
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. The decision in Jyoti
KK turned on a specific statutory
Rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification could
presuppose the acquisition of a
lower qualification. The absence
of such a Rule in the present case
makes a crucial difference to the
ultimate outcome. In this view of
the matter, the Division Bench of
the High Court was justified in
reversing the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and in
coming to the conclusion that the
Appellants did not meet the
prescribed qualifications. We find
no error in the decision of the
Division Bench.
23. While prescribing the
qualifications for a post, the
State, as employer, may
legitimately bear in mind several
features including the nature of
the job, the aptitudes requisite for
the efficient discharge of duties,
the functionality of a qualification
[2023:RJ-JD:25608] (4 of 4) [CW-1657/2020]
and the content of the course of
studies which leads up to the
acquisition of a qualification. The
state is entrusted with the
authority to assess the needs of
its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall
within the domain of
administrative decision making.
The state as a public employer
may well take into account social
perspectives that require the
creation of job opportunities
across the societal structure. All
these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread
warily. That is why the decision in
Jyoti KK must be understood in
the context of a specific statutory
Rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification which
presupposes the acquisition ofa
lower qualification was considered
to be sufficient for the post. It
was in the context of specific Rule
that the decision in Jyoti KK
turned."
For the same reason and given the fact that a
large number of registered ANM exists, who do
not possess 12th standard and whose chance of
recruitment would be drastically curtailed even
though they might be otherwise more
experienced than freshly qualified registered
candidates with 12th Standard qualification,
also persuades this Court not to grant relief in
these proceedings.
The writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed."
5. In view of the aforesaid and in light of the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Arti Vaishnav
(supra), the present writ petition is dismissed.
6. Stay application stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
32-AbhishekS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
