Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 561 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Nagar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-01

ARUN MISHRA, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2012
Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These intra Court appeals are directed against common order dated 19.04.2011 passed by Single Bench and point involved in these appeals is also common, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Respondent No. 2, Rajasthan Public Service Commission(for short ‘ the RPSC’) issued an Advertisement on 18.09.2009 inviting applications for the posts of Medical Officers. Initially, 540 vacancies were notified, but the same were enhanced to 1214 in various categories. In pursuance of above Advertisement, large number of candidates applied for the said posts, therefore, the RPSC took a decision for short listing number of applicants by way of screening test, which was held on 05.12.2010; result whereof was declared on 24.12.2010. The RPSC further took a decision to invite the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:2, i.e., twice the number of vacancies advertised for selection. Interviews were held from 12.01.2011 and continued for a month, upto 14.02.2011 and selections were made. 4. The petitioners, who were not falling in the ratio of 1:2 and were not called for interview for selection, filed the writ petitions contending therein that near about 600 candidates were called for interview, who were not holding their rotating internship of 12 months on the date of interview and they were in-eligible to participate in selection process and those 600 candidates, being allowed by the RPSC to participate in process of selection for interview, have eliminated the petitioners from consideration, despite being eligible and qualified in screening test. Reply to writ petitions was filed on behalf of the RPSC contesting the writ petitions. Learned Single Judge after considering submissions of parties, dismissed all the writ petitions by common order dated 19.04.2011, which is impugned in these intra Court appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were fully qualified and eligible in terms of Advertisement, but they were not called for interview, whereas near about 600 candidates were called for interview, who were not holding their rotating internship of 12 months on the date of interview and their candidature was rejected on the date of interview. The RPSC committed an illegality in not examining their candidature before calling them for interview. The RPSC committed an illegality in not examining their candidature before calling them for interview. If those 600 candidates would not have been called for interview, then the appellants would have been called for interview and they, being fully qualified and eligible, could have been selected. He further submitted that the criteria, adopted by the RPSC that candidates, in the ratio of 1:2 against vacancies advertised, will be called for interview, was also not proper. The proper ratio would have been 1:3. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent RPSC be directed to call the appellants for interview for selection. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and supported the order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that there is no merit in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and these appeals be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the Single Bench and other documents available on record. 8 The Advertisement was issued for the posts of Medical Officers on 18.09.2009. Initially 540 vacancies were advertised, which were later on enhanced to 1214 in various categories. Large number of applications were received, therefore, the RPSC took a decision for short listing the number of applicants by way of screening test, which was held on 05.12.2010 and result thereof was declared on 24.12.2010. The RPSC, thereafter, took a decision to invite the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:2, meaning thereby twice the number of vacancies advertised are to be called for interviews for selection. Interviews were held from 12.01.2011 to 14.02.2011 and select list was prepared. 9. Learned Single Judge also referred that a bunch of writ petitions were filed (CWP No. 343/2011 = 2011(4) RLW 3320 (Nishant & Others vs. State) and three other CWP Nos. Interviews were held from 12.01.2011 to 14.02.2011 and select list was prepared. 9. Learned Single Judge also referred that a bunch of writ petitions were filed (CWP No. 343/2011 = 2011(4) RLW 3320 (Nishant & Others vs. State) and three other CWP Nos. 384/2011, 396/2011 and 400/2011), wherein grievance was raised that as per Explanation below Note (2) of Advertisement dated 18.09.2009, a candidate was to submit his degree of MBBS on the date of interview, meaning thereby, for being eligible, candidate must have completed rotating internship of 12 months till the date of interview, which was challenged on the ground that examining their eligibility, which includes rotating internship on the date of interview, is totally fortuitous circumstance; more so when they had passed out their examination, as a result whereof, they have registered with medical council. As such, condition under Explanation below Note (2) is contrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention was examined vide judgment dated 13.01.2011 and while dismissing aforesaid writ petitions, i.e. (CWP No. 343/2011(Nishant & Others vs. State) and three other CWP Nos. 384/2011, 396/2011 and 400/2011), wherein taking note of Ordinance 268(d) of the University Ordinances, which provides,: “The MBBS degree shall be conferred after passing final MBBS examination and after a candidate has undergone compulsory rotating internship for a period of 12 months.” The Court rejected the contention advanced by writ petitioners, holding that MBBS degree shall not be considered as a valid degree for any purpose whatsoever, in the light of what has been envisaged in Ordinance 268(d) of University Ordinances, either for practice or for securing employment, unless a candidate has successfully completed compulsory rotating internship of 12 months and finally it was observed that writ petitioners have not completed their rotating internship on the date of interview and were not eligible to appear for interview and participate in process of selection initiated pursuant to Advertisement dated 18.09.2009. 10. The question arises for consideration in the case is as to whether the RPSC was within its competence to hold screening test, while large number of applications were received with reference to advertisement, for short listing the candidates and permitting them to participate in the process of selection in view of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963(for short ‘the Rules of 1963’). 11. 11. The said question was examined by learned Single Judge. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 was quoted in the impugned order passed by the Single Bench. The Single Bench, on the basis of decisions of this Court in Dr. Bheru Singh & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2008 (2) WLC(Raj.) 656 = 2008(2) RLW 1844 (Raj.)) and of Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath & Others, (2009) 5 SCC 1 , upheld the competence of the RPSC about its decision for short listing candidates by mode of holding screening test. 12. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that before the Single Bench, it was not the case of the petitioners that short listing was not permissible. The grievance of the petitioners/appellants was that decision, taken by the RPSC with regard to holding screening test, was in violation of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963, which was negated by the Single Bench relying upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Bheru Singh’s case(supra). In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in deciding this point against petitioners. We uphold the same. 13. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellants that, near about 600 candidates, who were not found eligible, were called for interview and they eliminated the petitioners for consideration, who were fully qualified and eligible, is concerned, it is suffice to mention that once the Commission took decision to hold screening test in exercise of powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 for short listing of candidates being called for interview in the ratio of 1:2, the eligibility in terms of amendment made under Rajasthan Various Service(Amendment) Rules, 1999, notified vide Notification dated 17.09.1999, could be examined by the Committee on the date, when the applicant appeared for interview and not prior thereto; and if one does not hold minimum qualification including rotating internship of 12 months on the date of interview, he/she could not be permitted, if not eligible, on the date of interview. But, once the candidates have been qualified in screening test and fallen within the ratio of 1:2, as per the decision of the Full Commission taken on 22.12.2010, the RPSC was under the obligation to call upon such candidates for interview and if either of candidates was not eligible, having not completed rotating internship of 12 months on the date of interview, and as such, being not eligible, his form could have been rejected by the RPSC, but the scrutiny could have been made only when the applicant appears for interview and not prior thereto. In these circumstances, we do not find any force in submission of learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. 14. We have examined the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petitions of the appellants and we find that they are absolutely legal and justified and based on sound interpretation of Rules of 1999 and Rules of 1963 and the same do not call for any interference in these intra Court appeals. 15. In view of above discussions, we do not find any force in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and speaking one and the same needs no interference. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed, being devoid of merits. Stay applications are also dismissed. 16. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 17. Registry is directed to place on record a copy of this judgment in each connected file.