Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 235 (RAJ)

Sanju Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2009-01-27

K.S.RATHORE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - All these four writ petitions involving similar questions of law and facts are being decided by this common order. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have claimed relief that the condition mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.09.2008 requiring to submit the certificate regarding completion of internship course on the last date of submissions of application form be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners after acquiring the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery are doing the internship and same is likely to be completed in the month of January, 2009. The petitioners have applied for the post of Ayurvedic Doctor in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.09.2008. The petitioners have not completed their internship till the date of filling up application form for the post of ayurvedic doctor and the petitioners will possess the required internship on the date of interview. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided the similar controversy in SBCWP No. 8593/2007 (Mukesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.), decided on 25.01.2008 . The Coordinate Bench has dismissed the writ petition following the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Ors., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, an impermissible justification. It cannot act contrary to it. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, an impermissible justification. The minority opinion in the 1993 decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma case that the 33 respondents, who were not qualified on the date of submission of the application but had acquired the requisite qualification before the date of interview, could not have been allowed to appear for Interview, was right. 5. Against the judgment passed by the Single Judge in other writ petition, the petitioners filed a special appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal while upholding the order passed by the Single Judge vide judgment dated 02.05.2008 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 119/2008 (Mahaveer Prasad Sabal & Ors. v. The State of Raj. & Ors.) . The Division Bench has observed that on the day, the appellant applied for the post aforesaid, he was not having the requisite qualification as he was still undergoing internship and the order passed by the Single Judge was upheld. 6. It is not disputed that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, also appeared before the Division Bench in Mahaveer Prasad's (supra) case. It appears that at the time of passing interim orders, the petitioners have concealed this material fact from this Court, otherwise this Court would have not passed the interim order. This Court vide its interim order directed the respondents to accept the application forms of the petitioner and consider the petitioners' candidature for the post of Ayurved Chikitsak in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.09.2008 provided they furnish certificate of attaining qualification required under the advertisement on the date of interview. However, it shall be on provisional basis and no right will otherwise be conferred upon them. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties and also perused the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), Division Bench of this Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties and also perused the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), Division Bench of this Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. According to advertisement dated 22.09.2008 issued by National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) on the date of filling the application form, the petitioners should have possessed the requisite qualification of internship, which admittedly, the petitioners were not having; and the petitioners have completed their internship on the date of interview and not at the time of submitting the application form, which is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). 9. Thus considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court finds no substance in these writ petitions and consequently, same are hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 25.11.2008 passed in SBCWP No. 13281/2008, interim order dated 25.11.2008 passed in SBCWP no. 13280/2008, interim order dated 28.11.2008 passed in SBCWP No. 13491/2008 and interim order dated 10.12.2008 passed in SBCWP no. 31/2008 are hereby vacated.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed - Interim Orders Vacated. *******