Dismissed

Sapna Jatav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2023CW/1657/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of ANMs with only 10th standard education from recruitment. Relying on Arti Vaishnav and Jyoti KK, the court held that the State's recruitment policy regarding educational qualifications falls within administrative discretion and is not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; stay application disposed.

Sapna Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25608]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1657/2020

¶4

Sapna Jatav W/o Mukesh Agarwal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Pungalpara, Pungaliyon Ki Gali, Inside City, Jodhpur

¶5

Neetu Yadav D/o Suvachann Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Plot No.120, Ganesh Nagar, Sangariya Fanta, Jodhpur

¶6

Sarita D/o Udai Singh Kataniya, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Kataniya, R/o Plot No.63/3, Veer Tejaji Nagar, Salawas Road, Basani, Ii Phase, Jodhpur

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur - 302001, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through The Registrar, B- 39, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶11

The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

The Joint Director (Training), Medical And Health Services Directorates, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

The Joint Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services Directorates, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit

¶16

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶17

Order

¶18

14/08/2023

¶19

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed thus:

¶20

“(i) That the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to finalize and issue the final list on the basis of 12^th with ANM average; (ii) That the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to withdraw the final list based on provisional list and on the average of Xth and ANM and the selection may kindly

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:25608]

[CW-1657/2020]

be directed to finalize on list on the basis of 12^th with ANM average;

¶25

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just, proper and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

(iv) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded.”

¶27

Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General at the outset submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment passed in the case of Arti Vaishnav &

¶28

Ors. Vs. State & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13275/2018 , decided on 11.07.2019

¶29

Perused the memo of writ petition including the prayer clause.

¶30

In the case of Arti Vaishnav (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held thus:

¶31

“8.This Court is of the opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioners in these proceedings cannot be justly granted. The mere fact that INC prescribed that in order to obtain registration as ANM, a candidate has to clear minimum 12th Standard or Senior Secondary School Examination as the minimum educational qualification, per-se doe not over-right the State’s conscious policy to retain pre-existing edcuational qualification for the purpose of recruitment to its posts or its services. In this regard, the State’s explanation that for the moment it does not wish to prescribe the higher educational eligibility condition of 12th Standard having regard to the large number of registered ANMs, who possessed10th Standard, which would exclude them from the choice of employment, looking to it, the Court cannot characterize it as arbitrary.

¶32

In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No.22 &23 held as under :

¶33

“22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:25608]

[CW-1657/2020]

judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra).The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is nopart of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a Rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

¶38

23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:25608]

[CW-1657/2020]

and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition ofa lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific Rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.”

¶43

For the same reason and given the fact that a large number of registered ANM exists, who do not possess 12th standard and whose chance of recruitment would be drastically curtailed even though they might be otherwise more experienced than freshly qualified registered candidates with 12th Standard qualification, also persuades this Court not to grant relief in these proceedings.

¶44

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.”

¶45

In view of the aforesaid and in light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Arti Vaishnav (supra), the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶46

Stay application stands disposed of.

¶47

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶48

32-AbhishekS/-

Sapna Jatav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Jatav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddi Kumari Bhoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prama Devi Vs Union of India

Narbada Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lachha Ram Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharu Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan