Rajasthan High Court
Rohit Sharma S/O Sh. Kailash Chand ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 31 January, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Shubha Mehta
[2023/RJJP/000914]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 582/2022
1. Rohit Sharma S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village Ulhail Nageshwar, Tehsil Gangaghat,
Dist. Jhalawar (Raj.)
2. Firoj Khan S/o Sh. Jalalludin, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Bar, Tehsil Rampur, Dist. Pali (Raj.)
3. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Devta, Tehsil Kothputli, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Beri, Tehsil Weir, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. Gunjan Samriya S/o Sh. Vinod Kuamr Samariya, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 437-A, Near Shiv Mandir, Mandi
Khatikhan, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Sandeep Sabal, S/o Sh. Jairam Sabal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 50, Devika Nagar, Road No. 17, Vki Area,
Tehsil Amer, Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Manorama Meena D/o Sh. Rampal Meena, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Uttam Colony, Kota Road, Baran (Raj.)
8. Dr. Pallavi Dave D/o Sh. Bharat Kumar Dave, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Phalodi, Ward No. 35,
Phalodi, Jodhpur (Raj.)
9. Sindhuja Meena D/o Sh. Ram Phool Meena, Aged About
26 Years, R/o 47, Jai Nagar, Road No. 2, Vki Area, Jaipur
(Raj.)
10. Simran Deep Kaur Dhonkal D/o Sh. Rajveer Singh
Dhonkal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 103/43, Patel
Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
11. Divya Dave D/o Sh. Dilip Kumar Dave, Aged About 25
Years, R/o 28-A, Shanti Nagar, B-Block, Jalore (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Ayurved,
Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy
(Ayush) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur-302005
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Chairman, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
3. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Jodhpur Through Its Vice Chancellor.
4. Mudit Sharma S/o Shri Rohitashwa Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 21-Sahapura Bagh, Amer Road,
Jaipur.
5. Dr. Nikita Choudhary D/o Shri Dinesh Choudhary W/o Dr.
Chhigan Singh Biraniya, Aged About 27 Years, Village
Itawa Bhopji Tehsil Chomu Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 12:09:21 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000914] (2 of 3) [SAW-582/2022]
6. Bharat Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Ladu Rama, A-21, Azad Nagar,
Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan.
7. Hemlata Bhati D/o Gainda Lal Gurjar, R/o 1-C-77, Gurjar
Basti, Shastri Nagar Jaipur.
8. Vishal Roat S/o Shri Mani Roat, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Village Chhani, Tehsil Sagwara, Dist.
Dungarpur (Raj.)
9. Bhagwati Lal Salvi S/o Sh. Dhanna Lal, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Village Laxmipura, Tehsil Dungala,
Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.)
10. Priyanshi Maheshwari D/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
Maheshwari, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of 556,
Keshavpura, Sector-7, Kota (Raj.)
11. Rashmi Gupta D/o Sh. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About
24 Years, Resident Of 1/138, Daudpur, Alwar (Raj.)
12. Rajendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Budh Singh, Aged About
24 Years, Resident Of Village Jema- Khera, Post Ajna,
Tehsil Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Indresh Sharma
Mr. G.L. Sharma
For Respondent : Mr. H.V. Nandwana
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
31/01/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and
learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents.
2. An advertisement was issued on 27.10.2020 by the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC')
inviting applications for the post of Yoga & Prakritik Chikitsa
Adhikari. The advertisement categorically provided that the
candidates appearing in the final year examination of a Bachelor
Degree in Naturopathy & Yogic Sciences (BNYS) can also apply,
provided they obtain the degree before the date of interview.
[2023/RJJP/000914] (3 of 3) [SAW-582/2022]
3. The candidature of the petitioners-appellants was rejected
as they were not possessed of the degree of BNYS on the date of
interview.
4. It is an admitted fact that the interview date was fixed on
27/28.12.2021, whereas according to the petitioners-appellants'
own showing, they completed their internship and the provisional
certificate or degree in that regard was issued to them on
28.03.2022 i.e. much after the date of interview.
5. In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants on
the ground that they were not having requisite qualification, as
mentioned in the advertisement, on the date of interview and they
have failed to produce the certificate in that regard.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners-
appellants is that the RPSC has arbitrarily fixed the date of
interview as 27/28.12.2021, so as to oust them from the selection
process.
7. The matter of fixing a date for interview is strictly in the
domain of the RPSC and is not a justiciable matter. Moreover,
there is no reason as to why the RPSC would have fixed a date for
interview detriment to the petitioners-appellants as it had no
grudge against any particular candidate.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no
error or illegality in the judgment and order of the Writ Court. The
appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
