JUDGMENT 1. - Wit a common grievance of the petitioners who are praying for issuance of the appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents Ayurvedic Department to include the names of the petitioners at appropriate place in the seniority and merit list prepared by the Ayurved Department in regard to main examination of Ayurved Compunder/Nurses with the prayer that all the petitioners be treated to have passed the main examination for all purposes when they had been declared passed in re-evaluation of the papers of the main examination by changing the year of internship and be given appointment on the post of Nurse/Compounder according to the merit in the list prepared by the respondent department. 2. The petitioners were admitted for training and appointment for Up-vaidya/Ayurved Compounder/Nurse which examination is conducted by the University of Rajasthan for the State of Rajasthan. It is stated that for giving the appointment, the merit is prepared by the University of Rajasthan. All the petitioners have appeared either in the year 1992 or 1993, result of which was declared in the year 1993. All the petitioners are said to have failed in one or the other paper. They had appeared in the supplementary and in the mean time the petitioners had also applied for re-evaluation of the answer-books. It is the case of the petitioners that those persons who had not failed were sent for internship course which is part of the examination in various hospitals and those persons had completed their internship in September, 1993. The petitioners are said to have passed the supplementary examination and their names were sent for internship after passing of such examination. It is the case of the petitioners that as they had applied for re-evaluation of their marks and on re-evaluation they were declared successful in the final examination which was initially held in the year 1992 or 1993. They were declared pass in 1994 after re-evaluation. However, all the petitioners had cleared their internship either in February or in March, 1994. 3. A merit list was prepared for the persons belonging to the session 1992-93, but for the reasons that the petitioners had not cleared the internship as such, their names were not shown in the merit list for the said year. However, all the petitioners had cleared their internship either in February or in March, 1994. 3. A merit list was prepared for the persons belonging to the session 1992-93, but for the reasons that the petitioners had not cleared the internship as such, their names were not shown in the merit list for the said year. It is stated that the petitioners were entitled to be included in the merit in the year 1992-93 as per the respective marks obtained by them. In nut-sheel the case of the petitioners is that because of the wrong marking the petitioners had to suffer and it was only after re-evaluation that their marks were corrected and, therefore, even though they had completed the internship in the year 1994, they are entitled to be given the benefit of being placed on the merit list prepared for the respective year when such candidates who were successful in examination 1993 were placed on merits. It is further submitted that because of fictitious circumstances of failing them and then passing them on re-evaluation, the petitioners were denied the opportunity of internship and they had completed the internship lateron and as such the merit list prepared by the department in this regard is to be modified. 4. With the above-said facts the following details are necessary to be incorporated in respect of the writ petitions. Jakeer Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2651/98. 5. The petitioner had failed in the result declared in February 1993, he appeared in supplementary examination, he applied for re-evaluation of the marks as well. He passed the supplementary examination in February 1993 and after declaration of the result he was sent for internship in August 1993 which he completed in February 1994. Soram Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 41/99. 6. The result of the petitioner was declared on 9.2.1993, the petitioner had failed. In the similar circumstances as in the above writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the internship examination, he completed the internship on 28.2.1994 and, therefore, he was treated and considered belonging to the batch of 1994 and not for the year 1992-93. Narendra Kumar Misra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5706/99. 7. Narendra Kumar Misra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5706/99. 7. The petitioner had also failed in the examination result of which was declared on 9.2.1993, he was given the admission of internship in 1993 and completed in 1994. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 580/99. 8. The petitioner had failed in the examination, result of which was declared on 17.7.93. He completed the internship in 1995 and was considered of the batch of 1995 for the reason that he had passed the examination in the year 1994 and was admitted in internship in the year 1994 itself. He is claiming to be included in the merit list 1993-94 instead of the batch of 1995. He had also passed because of re-evaluation. Mohan Singh Maderna Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2629/98. 9. The petitioner was considered to be of the batch belonging to 1994 when he had completed the internship. He had initialy failed in the examination held in February 1993. He had applied for re-evaluation, re-evaluation was allowed on 21.1.1994, immediately after re-evaluation he was admitted in internship from 25.2.1994 to September 1994. Mohan Lal Saharia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5813/98. 10. The petitioner had failed in the examination, result of which was declared in February 1993. He applied for re-evaluation, he was declared pass in re-evaluation in December 1993 and immediately thereafter he was sent for internship in February 1994 which he had completed successfully in August 1994. He was considered to be of the batch belonging to 1994 when he had passed the internship examination. Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ON., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6481/97. 11. The petitioners had completed their internship in the year 1994. It is stated that because of the reason that the declaration of the results of the main examination were delayed and, therefore, they cannot be penalised for the lapse on the part of the University. However, the University has not been made party in the present writ petition. The petitioner Madan Mohan and Pramod Kumar had completed the internship on 19.2.1994 whereas the petitioner Inderjeet Singh had completed on 20.9.1994. 12. However, the University has not been made party in the present writ petition. The petitioner Madan Mohan and Pramod Kumar had completed the internship on 19.2.1994 whereas the petitioner Inderjeet Singh had completed on 20.9.1994. 12. In the reply it is submitted that the petitioners had taken the training of Ayurved Compunder/Nurse etc., result of which was declared in 1993 and immediately thereafter the petitioner was allowed the internship of six months which they had completed in the year 1994. Brij Bhushan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ON., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5825/97. 13. The petitioner was declared fail in the result declared on 9.2.1993, applied for re-evaluation, the result of re-evaluation was declared in September 1993. The petitioner was given certain grace marks. Assertion of the petitioner that the result was declared in September 1994 was vehemently denied in the written statement. The petitioner had passed the second semister. The petitioner had undertaken the internship from the period 14.10.1993 to 13.4.1994 as per Annexure-3. It seems that the petitioner has tried to depict by saying that the result was declared late in September 1994 and, therefore, his name could not be included in the merit list in the year 1993. This assertion in para 3 of the writ petition on the face of it is wrong as in para 4 the petitioner himself says that the petitioner was allowed the internship from October 1993 to April 1994. It seems that their appears to be typographical mistake and it cannot be said that there is concealment of fact as alleged in the written statement, otherwise, the petitioner would not have said in para 4 that he had completed the internship in April 1994. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ON., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640/99. 14. The petitioner had failed in the examination of which the result declared in February 1993. He applied for re-evaluation, he had simultaneously appeared in the supplementary examination. After clearing the supplementary examination he was sent for internship in August 1993 which he had completed successfully in February 1994. In the mean time on re-evaluation his marks were increased. The petitioner prays that he be considered of the batch of 1992-93 and not of 1994. Ajay Kumar Awasthi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2554/99. 15. In the mean time on re-evaluation his marks were increased. The petitioner prays that he be considered of the batch of 1992-93 and not of 1994. Ajay Kumar Awasthi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2554/99. 15. The petitioner had failed in the result declared on 17.7.1993. He had appeared in the supplementary examination, he had also applied for re-evaluation. He was on having passed the examination sent for internship from October 1994 to April 1995. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 179/99. 16. Similar are the facts in this case. The petitioner was sent for internship in January 1995 and completed internship in July 1995. Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 177/99. 17. Similar is the position in this case. The petitioner was declared fail in the result decalred on 17.7.1993. He applied for re-evaluation. On having been declared passed on re-evaluation the petitioner was sent on internship in August 1994 which he had completed in 1995. 18. All the petitioners rely on an order passed by Justice Dalela J, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1995/97 Vishnu Dutt Katara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 9.2.1998 which writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order. "Heard. Petitioner has cleared main examination and has also done the internship, though, subsequently. Since the petitioner has been declared successful in re-evaluation for the examination, 1993, he shall be entitled to the appointment as if he has cleared the examination in 1993. Internship done subsequently, will not adversely effect the candidature of the petitioner in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The petitioner is also entitled to have the seniority treating him to be successful in the examination of 1993. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of." 19. The respondents rely on the University Ordinance No. 329-N-31 which states that the duration of the course is two and half years for diploma in Ayurved Compounder/Nurse training and after completition of Part II examination there shall be inernship in a recognised training centre of Ayurvedic Hospital. It is stated that the internship is an important part of the training and till the internship is completed the candidate is not said to have fully qualified for obtaining the required diploma. It is stated that the internship is an important part of the training and till the internship is completed the candidate is not said to have fully qualified for obtaining the required diploma. The respondents also rely on a Division Bench Judgment of this court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & anors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 689/98 decided on 24.11.98 wherein it was observed that the eligibility qualification being diploma course including internship which can be conferred only after the internship is completed; the date of completion of internship in a particular year is correct criterian to put the candidate in the batch of that particular year. The facts in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case were that certain candidates were not deputed for internship and they had to file a writ petition in the High Court for a direction to that effect and as per the direction of the High Court the candidates were put for internship in the year 1993. The learned Single Judge had held that the candidates in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case belong to the batch of 1991 and because of the reason that they were not immediately sent for internship by the department, such candidates were entitled to the batch of the original year. On challenge having been made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench set aside the judgment wherein it was found that the candidates could have been sent for internship in the month of August 1992 itself and would have completed the internship only in the year 1993. The Division Bench had observed as under : "The eligibility qualification being diploma course including internship and it being not disputed that the diploma can be conferred only after the internship is complete. The date of completion of internship in a particular year is the correct criterian to put the candidate in the batch of that particular year. Applying this test respondent No. 3 could be put only in 1993 batch.' 20. Applying the facts in the present case, all the candidates are relying on the fact of declaration of the result of re-evaluation. It is admitted fact that immediately after declaration of the result of re-evaluation or declaration of the result in supplementary examination and as soon as the petitioners had qualified the examination, the petitioners were deputed for internship. Applying the facts in the present case, all the candidates are relying on the fact of declaration of the result of re-evaluation. It is admitted fact that immediately after declaration of the result of re-evaluation or declaration of the result in supplementary examination and as soon as the petitioners had qualified the examination, the petitioners were deputed for internship. The material date in regard to conferring of diploma is of passing of the examination which is complete on completing the internship. If a candidate has passed internship in the year 1994, the diploma is to follow immediately thereafter and thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the internship completed in the year 1994 or 1995 should relate back to some previous year. The observations of the Division Bench as quoted above are material and binding. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the observations made by Justice Dalela J in disposing of the case of Vishnu Dutt Katara (supra) cannot have a force of laying down the law and none of the petitioner can derive any benefit out of that. For the reasons mentioned above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions Dismissed. *******