Allowed

Mohemmed Zahid v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2009CW/5061/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection for GNM nurse post citing expired nursing registration, arguing renewal occurred before interview. Court found registration valid prior to interview and ordered appointment with backdated benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for appointment on post of GNM with notional benefits from date of others' appointment subject to verification of original certificate.

Mohemmed Zahid Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5061/07
Mohemmad Zahid vs. State & Ors.

¶4

Date of order : 1/4/2009.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶6

Shri Om Prakash Choudhary for Shri Sushil
Sharma for the petitioner.
Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for
the respondents.

¶7

******

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed by the

¶10

petitioner aggrieved by non appointment on

¶11

the post of GNM Nurse.

¶12

The respondents advertised 2500 posts of

¶13

GNM vide notification dated 4.5.07. Such
appointment was to be made on contract
basis. The contract was liable to be renewed
periodically. The respondents required the
candidates to submit their application for
appointment by 25.5.07. The candidates were
required to pass the Senior Higher Secondary
or equivalent with diploma in Nursing from
RNRC and registration as A-Grade Nurse. The
respondents have rejected the candidature of

¶14

the petitioner on the ground that her
registration with Rajasthan Nursing Council
was valid upto 31.12.2006 and not

¶15

¶16

thereafter.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that since the petitioner was
required to submit the certificate with the
application to the respondents, he could not
get same renewed, but in any case, the
petitioner was issued call letter on
12.6.2007 by which he was required to appear
before the Interview Board on 20.6.07 and
before that date he has got his certificate

¶18

renewed which is evident from the
endorsementofthecertificateof

¶19

registration. The endorsement shows that it
was issued by competent authority i.e.
Rajasthan Nursing Counsel and it was valid
upto 31.12.2006. This fact was very much
disclosed to the members of the Interview
Board when the interview took place on

¶20

20.6.07. Even then his candidature was

¶21

rejected and his case was not considered.
Learned counsel argued that the candidates
appearing at S.No.87 to 90 in the select
list were all possessing lower merit than
the petitioner in OBC category.

¶22

The respondents have opposed the writ
petition and submitted that since the

¶23

¶24

registration of the petitioner with the

¶25

Nursing Council was not valid beyond
31.12.2006, therefore at the time of
interview, the selection committee did not
consider the petitioner as eligible because
he did not have valid and renewed
registration.

¶26

Having regard to the facts of the case
and considered the arguments aforesaid, I
find that the contention of the respondents
that on 20.6.2007 when the petitioner
appeared before the selection committee, did
not have valid and renewed registration with
the RNRC, cannot be accepted. It cannot be
believed that the petitioner when he applied
for appointment as GNM, would not produce
the renewed registration even though he
already had got registration renewed on
3.5.07, which was valid upto 31.10.2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner produced
for perusal of the Court registration
certificate with the endorsement of the
Registrar of the Nursing Council indicating
so. The petitioner has prima facie been able
to show that the candidates lower than him
in merit have been appointed.

¶27

¶28

In the result, this writ petition is

¶29

allowed. The respondents are directed to
consider case of the petitioner for
appointment upon his producing the original
certificate and grant him appointment on the
post of GNM. The respondents would be at
liberty to verify the facts about the

¶30

renewal of the registration from the
Rajasthan Nursing Council and petitioner was
required to produce before them the original

¶31

of the registration certificate. The
appointment of the petitioner would be made
from the same date when the candidates below
him in merit was so appointed. However, the
petitioner would be entitled to only
notional benefits for the intervening
period. The appointment shall be made on the
same terms and conditions as were in the

¶32

case of others, who were appointed.

¶33

Compliance of the judgement be made
within a period of three months from the
date its copy is produced before the
respondents.

¶34

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/

Mohemmed Zahid v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohemmed Zahid v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhag Chand Vs R.S.R.T.C.

Vasudev Vs R P S C Ajmer

Mohar Singh Vs the Chairman U.I.T.Alwar andORS

Gulab Chand Meena Vs State and Ors.

Heera Lal Damore Vs State and Ors.

Murari Lal Rawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.