Dismissed

Karamjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 May 2019SAW/450/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special leave appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the rejection of his candidature for a Nurse Grade II post. The appellant claimed eligibility based on late experience certificates and alleged unequal treatment of another candidate. The court held that recruitment deadlines are binding and lack of timeliness precludes special equity or Article 14 violation based

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed for lack of merit as the appellant failed to prove eligibility within the stipulated time.

Karamjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 450/2019

¶3

Karamjeet Singh S/o Shri Gurjant Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No. 11, Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶7

Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶8

Chief Medical Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar.

¶9

Gursivar Singh S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Village Mohakwala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh.

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

24/05/2019

¶15

The appellant’s grievance is that the learned Single Judge rejected his writ petition; the claim made in those proceedings was that his application seeking bonus marks for previous experience was wrongly denied by the respondents-recruiting authorities.

¶16

The eligibility conditions stipulated that candidates ought to have worked in the National Rural Health Mission (NHRM) or a similar programme; the post advertised was that of Nurse GradeII. The appellant relied upon a certificate, which did not conform to the specifications stipulated in the advertisement resulting in

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[SAW-450/2019]

¶19

rejection of his candidature, on 28.04.2016. He approached the Court two years later, by filing a writ petition in 2018, contending firstly that he in fact possessed the requisite experience (for which he relied upon a certificate issued by the Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Khui Khera, District Fazilka, Punjab) and secondly, that under similar circumstances when another candidate produced a certificate, which was issued later, he was granted the bonus marks and subsequently appointed.

¶20

The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions rejected the petition on the ground that since the appellant did not produce the certificate on time, his claim was not tenable. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that despite repeated representations, the certificate was not issued by the Punjab authorities, for which he could not be blamed and that moreover, in the case of another candidate, because of the influence that he possessed, a certificate issued later was taken into account and that candidate was appointed to the post.

¶21

This Court is of the opinion that the appellant’s arguments cannot be accepted. An advertisement when issued designates a cut-off date by which time the concerned applicant, who possesses eligibility has to apply. The candidate is required to produce the proof of fulfilling such eligibility conditions. Sometimes, the recruitment process designates the proof of experience as on the date of interview or such like period. 6. In the present case, however, the requisite and relevant experience certificate was issued much later, i.e. on 20.12.2017. The appellant may be justified in contending that his repeated representations went unheeded. However, that did not in any manner clothe him with special equity to demand that his

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[SAW-450/2019]

¶24

candidature for a process initiated and completed much earlier ought to be completed and directions issued by the Court. Likewise, another candidate was given indulgence does not ipso facto amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since there is no concept of ‘negative equality’ which demands that relief granted on account of violation of rule or norm can itself constitute a cause of action to similarly situated parties who claim relief on the basis of violation of that norm.

¶25

For the above reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶27

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶28

19-A.Arora/-

Karamjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Pramila Kumari

Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chandra Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Saran Vs State of Rajasthan

Anda Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan