Dismissed

Neeraj Dubey S/O Sh. Devendra Kumar Dubey v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2022CW/246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by candidates rejected from the Yoga and Prakritik Chikitsa Adhikari post. The Court held that petitioners were ineligible as they lacked the requisite registration certificate at the time of interview and are estopped from challenging the process after participating.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Conditionally Eligible Candidates List and direction for appointment were not granted; petitions dismissed.

Neeraj Dubey S/O Sh. Devendra Kumar Dubey… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15212/2021

¶4

Komal Khandelwal D/o Omprakash Khandelwal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 150, Santosh Sagar Colony, Gali No. 2, Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 450264)

¶5

Adivarna Pareek D/o Ram Kishor Pareek, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 142, Shiv Nagar, Dadi Ka Phatak, Benar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 450239)

¶6

Anuja Anand D/o Suresh Anand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 598, Vidyut Nagar-A, Ajjmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 450031)

¶7

Nikita Jain D/o Ram Babu Jain, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 102, Muktanand Nagar, Tonk Road, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 450001)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary, Ayurved And Indian Medicine Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected with

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15386/2021

¶16

Rohit Sharma S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Ulhail Nageshwar, Tehsil Gangaghat, Dist. Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶17

Rajendra Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Budh Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Jema Khera, Post Ajna, Tehsil Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶18

Firoj Khan S/o Sh. Jalalludin, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Bar, Tehsil Rampur, Dist. Pali (Raj.)

¶19

Vishal Roat S/o Sh. Manilal Roat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Chhani, Tehsil Sagwara, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.)

¶20

Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Devta, Tehsil Kothputli, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶21

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Beri, Tehsil Weir, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶22

Bhagwati Lal Salvi S/o Sh. Dhanna Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Laxmipura, Tehsil Dungala, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶23

Gunjan Samriya S/o Sh. Vinod Kuamr Samariya, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 437-A, Near Shiv Mandir, Mandi Khatikhan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶24

(2 of 7)

¶25

[CW-15212/2021]

¶26

Sandeep Sabal, S/o Sh. Jairam Sabal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of 50, Devika Nagar, Road No. 17, Vki Area, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶27

Manorama Meena D/o Sh. Rampal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Uttam Colony, Kota Road, Baran (Raj.)

¶28

Rashmi Gupta D/o Sh. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 1/138, Daudpur, Alwar (Raj.)

¶29

Dr. Pallvi Dave, D/o Sh. Bharat Kumar Dave, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Indira Colony, Phalodi, Ward No. 35, Phalodi, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶30

Priyanshi Maheshwari D/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar Maheshwari, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of 556, Keshavpura, Sector-7, Kota (Raj.)

¶31

Sindhuja Meena D/o Sh. Ram Phool Meena, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 47, Jai Nagar, Road No. 2, Vki Area, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶32

Simran Deep Kaur Dhonkal D/o Sh. Rajveer Singh Dhonkal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 103/43, Patel Marg, Mansarover, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶33

Divya Dave, D/o Sh. Dilip Kumar Dave, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 28-A, Shanti Nagar, B-Block, Jalore (Raj.)

¶34

----Petitioners

¶35

Versus

¶36

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homoeopathy (Ayush) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur302005

¶37

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶38

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur Through Its Vice Chancellor.

¶39

Mudit Sharma S/o Shri Rohitashwa Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 21-Sahapura Bagh, Amer Road, Jaipur.

¶40

Dr. Nikita Choudhary D/o Shri Dinesh Choudhary W/o Dr. Chhigan Singh Biraniya, Aged About 26 Years, Village Itawa Bhopji Tehsil Chomu Jaipur.

¶41

Bharat Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Ladu Rama, A-21, Azad Nagar, Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶42

Hemlata Bhati D/o Gainda Lal Gurjar, 1-C-77, Gurjar Basti, Shastri Nagar Jaipur.

¶43

----Respondents

¶44

Connected With

¶45

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 246/2022

¶46

Neeraj Dubey S/o Sh. Devendra Kumar Dubey, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Behind Midway Hotel, Leela Vihar Colony, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶47

----Petitioner

¶48

Versus

¶49

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Ayurved, Yoga

¶50

(3 of 7)

¶51

[CW-15212/2021]

¶52

And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005

¶53

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Chairman, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶54

Banaras Hindu University, Through Its Vice Chancellor, Varanasi, U.p.

¶55

----Respondents

¶56

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.L. Sharma Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Aamir Khan Mr. Giriraj Rajoria For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG assisted by Ms. Srijana Shresth Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy.G.C. Mr.H.V. Nandwana Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Vishesh Sharma

¶57

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶58

Order

¶59

19/04/2022

¶60

These writ petitions since involve common question, hence with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.

¶61

To examine the controversy, the facts, on request of the parties, have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15212/2021, as such the prayer made in this writ petition is reproduced here as under:

¶62

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition with costs and further be pleased to direct the respondents to the following effect: I. By issue an appropriate writ , order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to call the petitioners in the interview process for the post

¶63

(4 of 7)

¶64

[CW-15212/2021]

¶65

of Yoga and Prakritik Chikitsa Adhikari in compliance of result dated 30.07.2021 and thereby if the petitioners were declared successful in the interview process then give appointment to them with all consequential benefits.

¶66

ii. By issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the impugned Conditionally Eligible Candidates List (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Iii. By issue an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioners in light of the Notification dated 27.03.2017 as they have fulfilled all eligibility criteria as per rules. iv. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners.”

¶67

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 27.10.2020 issued by the RPSC the petitioners applied for the post of Yoga and Prakritik Chikitsa Adhikari. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the respondents on the ground of not having the requisite qualification on the date of interview as mentioned in the advertisement.

¶68

Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are having the Bachelors degree in the required subject on the date of interview i.e. 27/28-12-2021, as prescribed by the RPSC. Counsel further submits that the RPSC has committed serious illegality by rejecting their candidature only on the ground of not having the registration certificate from Rajasthan Indian Medicine Board prior to the date of interview. Counsel further submits that at that time they were pursuing their internship, therefore, their

¶69

(5 of 7)

¶70

[CW-15212/2021]

¶71

registration was not done with the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Board. Counsel further submits that by the notification dated 27.03.2017 the respondents have amended the rules, according to which the petitioners are having the requisite qualification.

¶72

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Khande & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 886/2021) wherein on

¶73

07.12.2021 following order was passed;

¶74

“This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10/09/2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9473/2021. The petitioners had applied for the post of Ayurved Medical Officer which was notified by the State Government under an advertisement dated 22/12/2020. The eligibility criteria was B.A.M.S. degree holder. The advertisement provided that a person pursuing the course may also apply and would be treated as eligible as long as he or she can produce the eligibility certificate on the date of document verification. The petitioners completed B.A.M.S. course in October, 2020 after which petitioners would have to undergo internship of one year duration only upon which the petitioners can stated to have acquired the eligibility. The documents were verified between 01/09/2021 to 08/09/2021. The petitioners completed the internship in November, 2021 therefore were not held eligible. They approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition relying on a decision of division bench of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Zaiba and others dated 24/04/2020

¶75

(6 of 7)

¶76

[CW-15212/2021]

¶77

passed in DBSAW No.252/2019. Thereupon the petitioners have filed this appeal.

¶78

The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellantsoriginal petitioners is that it was on account of extraordinary situation created by spread of Coronavirus that the petitioners could not complete the internship earlier. Due to this, they could complete the eligibility conditions a couple of months beyond the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement. Such period should be condoned and the petitioners should be held eligible for the post in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the entire selection process is over and the appointments have been issued. The internship was of the duration of one year. The petitioners were granted certificates of B.A.M.S. passed only in October, 2020. They therefore could not have satisfied the eligibility criteria for a period of one year.

¶79

The record would thus suggest that the petitioners had cleared the B.A.M.S. only in October, 2020. The internship being of the duration of one year, they could not complete such internship and thereby acquired the full eligibility only in November, 2021. They completed internship in November, 2021. Between 01/09/2021 to 08/09/2021 the recruiting agency verified the documents when admittedly the petitioners had not completed the internship and, therefore, were not awarded the degree of B.A.M.S. We do not see this is a case where the internship was extended or delayed on account of Covid situation. Soon after the parent institute issued the certificate of B.A.M.S. pass in favour of the petitioners; they enrolled themselves for internship and completed the internship within one year without any hiccup or delays. The petitioners therefore

¶80

(7 of 7)

¶81

[CW-15212/2021]

¶82

cannot take shelter of Covid situation for seeking extension of the last date for acquiring eligibility. The learned Single Judge committed no error. The appeal is dismissed.”

¶83

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶84

These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, admittedly the petitioners were not having the requisite qualification as mentioned in the advertisement dated 17.10.2020 as they were not registered with the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Board before the date of interview and they have failed to produce the said certificate at the time of interview before the RPSC; secondly, the petitioners have participated in the selection process after carefully reading the required educational qualification as mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, in my considered view, they are estopped to challenge the same after participating in the selection process; lastly, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Khande (supra), I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.

¶85

In that view of the matter, these writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶86

All the pending applications stand disposed.

¶87

The interim order dated 21.12.2021 stands vacated.

¶88

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶89

CHETNA BEHRANI /81,80,82

Neeraj Dubey S/O Sh. Devendra Kumar Dubey v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Dubey S/O Sh. Devendra Kumar Dubey v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Son of Nand Kishore Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Sharma S/O Satya Narayan Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Avinash Joshi S/O Sh. Radha Gopal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Saini Son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal Son of Madan Lal Solanki Vs the State of Rajasthan

Panna Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan