Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Abhishek Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 April, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:18973]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR


                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7472/2025


Abhishek Jain S/o Shri Paras Jain, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jain
Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan).
                                                                           ----Petitioner

                                       Versus

1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
         Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.       The Director, Rajasthan Medical And Family Welfare
         Institute, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3.       The Registrar,          Rajasthan        Pharmacy           Council,     Jaipur
         (Rajasthan).
4.       Shri Hitesh Joshi S/o Shri Shankar Lal Joshi, C/o
         Rajasthan Medical And Family Welfare Institute,
         Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Tanuj Dave, for
                                  Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

17/04/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to

afford appointment to the petitioner on the post of Pharmacist in

pursuance to the provisional select list dated 05.07.2024

(Annex.7).

2. The case of the petitioner is that his result was withheld on

the count of report of verification of the registration certificate

from the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council being awaited. He submits

[2025:RJ-JD:18973] (2 of 5) [CW-7472/2025]

that the said report was never received and the Department took

no action further.

3. Counsel submits that even otherwise the eligibility is to be

reckoned as per the academic qualification and the Registration

Certificate is a mere formality which would not determine the

merit of the candidate.

4. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Rajkumari Chahar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.15010/2023 (decided on 09.01.2024).

5. Counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner possessed

the Registration Certificate and hence, he deserves to be granted

appointment.

6. Per contra counsel for the respondents submits that the

application form of the petitioner itself makes it clear that he was

not eligible as per the requisite qualifications prescribed in the

advertisement. The application form filled up by the petitioner on

11.06.2023 (Annex.R/1) i.e. the last date of submission of

application reflects the date of Registration Certificate of the

petitioner to be 12.07.2023. Meaning thereby, reflecting the date

of 12.07.2023 in the application form dated 11.06.2023 is

unimaginable. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the petitioner

procured the Registration Certificate on 12.07.2023 evidently, he

was not eligible on the last date of application form i.e.

11.06.2023.

7. Counsel for the respondent while relying upon the judgment

passed by Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan &

Ors. Vs. Zaiba & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

[2025:RJ-JD:18973] (3 of 5) [CW-7472/2025]

No.252/2019 (decided on 24.04.2020) submitted that a

candidate who did not possess the registration on or before the

last date of submission of application form, cannot be treated to

be eligible. Herein, the Registration Certificate of the petitioner

admittedly was of 12.07.2023 whereas the last date of application

form was 11.06.2023.

8. Clarifying the fact as to how the date of 12.07.2023 was

reflected in the form filled up on 11.06.2023, counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the said fact/document was uploaded by

the petitioner subsequently after the time been extended for filling

up the forms.

9. Responding to the above argument, counsel for the

respondent submitted that the time extension granted vide Office

Order dated 12.09.2023 (Annex.5) clearly reflected that the same

was granted only for the purposes of correction in the data. Clause

13 of the said order/circular specifically provided that neither

document/certificate issued after the last date of submission of

application form shall be considered nor can any such document

be uploaded.

10. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

11. A perusal of the advertisement dated 05.05.2023 reflects

that minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Pharmacist

was:-

"I. Diploma in Pharmacy; and II. Registered as Pharmacist in Rajasthan Pharmacy Council.

vf/kekU; ;ksX;rk%& nsoukxjh fyfi esa fgUnh Hkk'kk dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA

UkksV%& fcUnw la[;k II ds fy;s jktLFkku QkesZlh dkSafly] t;iqj }kjk Mh-QkekZ-@ch-QkekZ- dkslZ gsrq tkjh iath;u Øekad fy[kuk vfuok;Z gSA

[2025:RJ-JD:18973] (4 of 5) [CW-7472/2025]

iath;u ds vHkko esa iath;u laca/kh vU; dksbZ nLrkost ekU; ugha gksxkA vH;FkhZ dk vkWuykbZu vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk rd jktLFkku QkesZlh dkSafly esa iath;u gksuk vfuok;Z gS A" Mh-QkekZ- vFkok ch-QkekZ- dkslZ nksuksa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa Hkjh xbZ ;ksX;rk esa izkIr vadksa ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA vr% nksuksa O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkosnd fdlh ,d dkslZ dk gh fooj.k vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa djsA

mä ds vfrfjä vH;FkhZ ds fy;s jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ¼;Fkk la"kksf/kr½ esa ;Fkkfofgr leLr vU; ;ksX;rk;sa iw.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gSA og vkosfnr in ds fy;s bu fu;eksa ds rgr~ fu;qfä gsrq v;ksX; ugh gksuk pkfg;sA

12. The issue as to whether a candidate who had obtained the

Registration Certificate subsequent to the last date of submission

of application form would be eligible, is no more res integra. In

Zaiba's case (supra), it has been settled that if a candidate does

not possess registration on or before the last date of submission of

application form, he cannot be treated as eligible.

13. The same view has been reiterated by the Division Bench of

this Court in a judgment passed in bunch of matters being led by

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.284/2020; State of

Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Suman Khateek & Ors. (decided on

16.03.2023).

14. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on Rajkumari

Chahar's case (supra) is misconceived as therein, it was the

specific condition of the advertisement that the registration

certificate could be produced at the stage of verification of

documents. In Rajkumari Chahar's case(supra), the ratio of

Zaiba's case (supra) was distinguished while observing as under:-

"Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, relies on a judgment rendered in case titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Zaiba & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.252/2019). He urges that in a similar

[2025:RJ-JD:18973] (5 of 5) [CW-7472/2025]

situation a candidate who did not have the registration certificate of the Medical Board was held ineligible by the Division Bench, notwithstanding that the learned Single Judge had allowed his petition.

I have perused the judgment and am of the view that reliance on the same is misplaced by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the said judgment, the certificate was produced after the last date had gone past as per the advertisement. In the present case, as I have observed hereinabove, cut-off date to produce requisite registration certificate was during the prescribed dates of documents verification round. Documents verification was to conclude on 16.08.2023 and the petitioner concededly produced the said certificate on 11.08.2023."

15. In view of the above, evidently the ratio of Rajkumari

Chahar's case (supra) would not apply to the present matter. The

present matter would be governed by the ratio as laid down in

Zaiba's case.

16. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition is

hence, dismissed.

17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 219-praveen/-