Dismissed

Rahul Singh S/O Shri Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2023CW/6422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners challenged the final merit list for Lab Assistants, claiming discrimination against candidates with higher qualifications who possessed Senior Secondary education and a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the selection criteria were not capricious or arbitrary and no violation of fundamental rights was established.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Interim stay order dated 09.05.2022 vacated. Stay application disposed of.

Rahul Singh S/O Shri Devi Singh Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6422/2022

¶4

Rahul Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 61, Gulab Vihar, Tonk Road, Sitabari, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

Amul Kumar Dhakar S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Dhakar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 52, Azad Nagar, Tonk Road, Sangainer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

Mo. Tosif S/o Shri Salam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 59, Jagdish Colony, Ramgarh Mod, Amer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

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

¶11

Additional Director (Administration), Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, State Of Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain for Dr. Vivek Tyagi, DyGC

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶15

Order

¶16

22/09/2023

¶17

By way of instant writ petition, filed by three writ petitioners conjointly, a challenge has been made to the final merit list dated 10.03.2022 prepared for the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to direct recruitment- 2018 to fill vacancies notified vide advertisement dated 29.05.2018.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that respondents have prepared the impugned merit list, taking into consideration the 70% marks of aspirant candidates from Secondary Education and 30% marks for the experience possessed by candidates to

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

(2 of 9)

work either as Lab Assistant/Lab Technician in the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel has argued that petitioners possess educational qualification of Senior Secondary as well as professional qualification of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology but since the criteria of preparing the merit list has been adopted differently, petitioners have not been shortlisted in the merit list. Counsel for petitioners argued that the direct recruitment for the post of Lab Assistant has been made under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 and procedure of selection is mandate under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965. It is not in dispute that in the present advertisement, the eligibility criteria for the post of Lab Assistant, as prescribed is in accordance with notification dated 23.05.2018 through which the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2018”) were promulgated. As per the amended rules and the advertisement, the criteria of selection is 100% by way of direct recruitment and the eligibility is as under:-

¶23

Amendment of Schedule I .- In Schedule-I appended to the Rajasthan Medial & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, under the heading Group A-VI [Para Medial Cadre (Medical)], the existing serial number 8 and entries thereto shall be substituted by the following

¶24

namely:-

¶25

Laboratory Assistant	100%	1. Senior Secondary with Science or its equivalent examination; and 2. Any Diploma in Medial Laboratory Technology from an Institute recognized by the State Government
		However, for the first time recruitment, after the commencement of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2018, any persons possessing.- 1. Secondaryor its equivalent

(3 of 9)

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

and

Any Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from an institute recognized by the State Government:

¶31

¶32

having minimum three years experience of working as Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory Technician in State Government Hospitals on contract basis or through Service Provider Agency shall also be eligible.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioners has also pointed out that after issuance of advertisement, a notification dated 09.12.2021 came to be issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel through which in the criteria of selection of Lab Assistant pursuant to present recruitment- 2018, one addition has been made to the effect that all the selected candidates would have to undergo to a bridge course for six months, as provided by the State Government, within a period of two years from the date of appointment. It is not in dispute that the notification dated 09.12.2021 has been made applicable w.e.f. 23.05.2018 and to the present direct recruitment of Lab Assistant pursuant to advertisement dated 29.05.2018. It would be apposite to reproduce and highlight the change in the eligibility column introduced by way of notification dated 09.12.2021, hereunder:

¶34

Laboratory	100%	1. Senior Secondary with Science from
Assistant		recognized Board or its equivalent examination; and 2. Diploma in Medial Laboratory Technology from an Institute recognized by the State Government
		However, as one time measure, those who do not possesses any recognized professional qualification but passed
		Secondary Examination from a Board recognized by the State Government and having minimum three year’s experience of service as Laboratory Technology or
		LaboratoryAssistant in the State

(4 of 9)

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

Government Hospital Laboratory on contract basis or through Service Provider Agency shall also be eligible for the recruitment to the post of Laboratory Assistant advertised vide dated 29.05.2018 All such selected candidates shall have to undergo a bridge course of not less than six months duration, as may be specified by the State Government and such a bridge course must be completed within two years from the date of appointment.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioners have argued that by adopting the selection criteria taking the educational qualification of Secondary and on the basis of experience, petitioners stand discriminated in hostile manner and petitioners who are higher qualified having possession of educational qualification of Senior Secondary and professional qualification of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, have been made to suffer. Hence, it has been prayed that the final select list dated 10.03.2022 be quashed and respondents be directed to prepare fresh selection list wherein, the professional qualification of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology be ordered to be taken into consideration mandatorily, as same would be in accordance with the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965.

¶40

Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court on 05.08.2016 delivered in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.21/2016:Bajrang Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals wherein the issue in respect of preparing the select list of the Pharmacist under the Rules of 1965 after excluding the higher qualification of B.Pharma and M.Pharma was under consideration.

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

(5 of 9)

Per contra, on behalf of learned counsel for respondentState, it has been argued that the final merit list dated 10.03.2023, prepared for the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to direct recruitment-2018 is not de hors to the procedure of selection prescribed in the rules and the merit list has been prepared as per policy decision of the State Government. All three petitioners, although, participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 29.05.2018 but are lesser in merit, hence, could not find place in final merit list dated 10.03.2022, hence, thereafter they have challenged the criteria of selection which is impermissible in law. It has been argued that it is not that case, where candidates having the educational qualification of Senior Secondary and the professional qualification of Diploma in Laboratory Technology have been excluded from consideration. The criteria of selection and to prepare the merit list, as introduced by way of the Rules of 2018 has been followed uniformly while preparing the impugned final selection list and in pursuance thereof, all appointments to the selected candidates have been made. It has been argued that the amended rules are not under challenge and petitioners, after remaining failure to be shortlisted in the selection list on merits, has challenged the criteria of selection arbitrarily. There is no violation of any constitutional rights of petitioners nor there is any infringement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶45

Heard. Considered.

¶46

At the outset, counsel for petitioners does not dispute that

¶47

the amendment carried out in the Rules of 1965 by way of

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

(6 of 9)

introducing the second amendment Rules, 2018 as also vide notification dated 09.12.2021, which has been made applicable to the present recruitment- 2018 pursuant to advertisement dated 29.05.2018 as well, are not under challenge in the present writ petition. By way of amended rules- 2018, any person who possess the qualification of Secondary or its equivalent and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology or having minimum 3 years experience of working as Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician in the hospital of the State Government, is eligible to participate in the selection process. It is not the case of petitioners that though the selection list dated 10.03.2022 has been prepared taking into consideration the criteria of selection in the manner that 70% marks of Secondary Education and 30% marks of experience, but persons who possess the qualification of Senior Secondary and professional qualification of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology have been excluded from consideration. It is admitted case that the candidature of petitioners too has been considered on merits.

¶52

The criteria of selection, as alleged to be adopted by respondents in preparing the selection list is one of the method as envisaged in the rules introduced by way of Second Amendment Rules, 2018 and has also been indicated in the advertisement itself. Thus, petitioners were well aware since inception and at the time of participation for recruitment, that persons who possess Secondary Education and experience of three years working as Laboratory Assistant/ Lab Technician in the hospital of the State Government, are also eligible to participate in the recruitment process, pursuant to present advertisement dated 29.05.2018.

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

(7 of 9)

Such eligibility as indicated in the advertisement itself, stands in conformity/ consonance with the statutory rules and has not ever been put to challenged by petitioners in the present writ petition. 10. Counsel for petitioners, during course of arguments do not dispute that all three petitioners have not been awarded marks in the head of experience, due to having no experience of working as required in the advertisement to award marks. Petitioners admittedly do not possess any working experience merely, on the basis of marks secured by petitioners in the Secondary examination, they could not find place in the final selection list. Thus, it is undisputed fact that as per the criteria of selection followed by respondents to prepare the merit list, petitioners have not come within the merit.

¶57

Counsel for petitioners is not able to depict that the criteria of preparing the merit list, followed by respondents is either de hors to the statutory rules of 1965 or has not been followed uniformly or petitioners only have been put to hostile discrimination. This is also not in dispute that even in the present selection process, persons who have educational qualification higher than Secondary as also possess the qualification of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology have also been considered and are included in the merit list in question, whosoever have fallen in merit.

¶58

This Court finds that if respondents have adopted and chosen one of the criteria and method of preparing the merit list as a policy decision, same may not be allowed to be questioned unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary or is suffers from vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

(8 of 9)

provisions of the Constitution of India. No such case is make out by petitioners, to impugn the selection list prepared after following the policy decision and applying the criteria of selection uniformly. In such given facts and circumstances, no case of hostile discrimination with petitioners is make out. This Court finds support to its conclusion, from the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala [(1997) 9 SCC 495] , and it would be apposite to reproduce para

¶63

No.36 of the judgment which reads as under:-

¶64

“ 36. To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid “embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy”.”

¶65

The judgment of the Division Bench, rendered in case of Bajrang Lal (supra), referred by counsel for petitioners do not render any support to case of petitioners because in that judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench quashed the judgment of learned Single Judge and opined that while preparing the merit list of Pharmacist, persons who are holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma in the same faculty/stream of D. Pharma, deserve to be considered and the decision of the State Government was affirmed and fresh medical list was directed to be prepared. On facts of the

(9 of 9)

[2023:RJ-JP:24642]

[CW-6422/2022]

present case, persons who possess the higher qualification either academic or professional, have not been excluded from consideration but they are also included in the merit list which fact has not been disputed by petitioners as well. Undisputedly, petitioners were considered but could not come in merit as such have not been figured in the merit list. It has also not been disputed that appointments of finally selected candidates in the merit list dated 10.03.2022 have already made.

¶70

Thus the upshot of discussion made hereinabove is that the writ petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed.

¶71

The interim stay order dated 09.05.2022 passed to keep vacant reserving three posts of Lab Assistant, in the present recruitment- 2018 stands come to an end and is vacated.

¶72

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶73

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶74

NITIN /282

Rahul Singh S/O Shri Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh S/O Shri Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayeed Shah S/O Late Shri Rasul Shah Vs Intejamiya Committee Dargah

Santosh Kumar S/O Shri Nemichand Sharma, Vs Smt. Safedi W/O Nemichand

Mishri Lal Son of Shri Jeevan Lal Vs Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer

Rinku Kumari Nagar D/O Shri Champalal Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajni Bakolia W/O Shri Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jhamman Lal Tiwari Son of Late Shri Heeralal Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan