Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 363 (RAJ)

Arun Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of the instant writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for a direction to be summoned for interview and consequent appointment to the post of Medical Officer, Veterinary in the selection process held by the respondent RPSC pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.3.2011. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioners herein procured the Bachelor’s Degree of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry from an institution known as Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur (referred to herein after as ‘Apollo college) affiliated to Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner/Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. The degrees were conferred upon the petitioners on 4.5.2010. It is not in dispute that the Apollo college was recognized by the Veterinary Council of India when the petitioners were conferred the Bachelor’s degree. The petitioners’ names were entered in the State register maintained by the Rajasthan State Veterinary Council on the basis of the degrees conferred upon them. 4. Vacancies for appointment on the posts of Veterinary Officers were advertised by the R.P.S.C. vide advertisement dated 8.3.2011. As per the advertisement, the educational qualification was prescribed as Bachelor’s Degree of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry or equivalent qualifications from a recognized institution. The advertisement bore another stipulation that the applicant’s name should be registered with the Rajasthan State Veterinary Council. The petitioners applied therein and were declared successful in the screening test, the result whereof was declared on 30.6.2011. 5. It is relevant to mention here that after the petitioners had procured their graduation degrees, the Veterinary Council of India de-recognised the Apollo college. The said decision was intimated by letter dated 26.5.2010. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid action of the Veterinary Council, the petitioners preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9043/2010 wherein this Court passed an interim stay order dated 4.10.2010 restraining the Rajasthan State Veterinary Council, Jaipur from deleting the names of the petitioners from the State register in pursuance of the communication dated 26.5.2010 and any other subsequent communications in this regard. A few other similarly affected candidates preferred a bunch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2635/2011, challenging the same decision of the Council before the Jaipur Bench. The writ petitions preferred at the Jaipur Bench were dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.11.2011. A few other similarly affected candidates preferred a bunch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2635/2011, challenging the same decision of the Council before the Jaipur Bench. The writ petitions preferred at the Jaipur Bench were dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.11.2011. The order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid bunch of the writ petitions, was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeals No.142-143/2012 & 1900-1903/2012. The Hon’ble Apex Court granted interim protection to the concerned petitioners by orders dated 5.1.2012 and 18.1.2012. The Apollo College also preferred a Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Division Bench’s order dated 17.11.2011. The Hon’ble Apex Court formed an expert committee to suggest a possible legal solution for the cases of such students who had passed from such unrecognized institutions within the legal framework. 6. The S.L.Ps. preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court came to be decided by order dated 25.7.2014 and it was ordered :- “49. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court should have given a possible legal solution in respect to the students who have already passed out from the Apollo College and the Mahatma Gandhi College affiliated to Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner by directing the Central Government to make appropriate amendment in the First Schedule of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 so as to include the Apollo College and the Mahatma Gandhi College in the First Schedule for the purpose of recognition of B.V.Sc. & A.H. degree on or before 11th July, 2011 in so far as it relates to Apollo College and 8th December, 2011 in respect of Mahatma Gandhi College. We direct accordingly. So far as the other students who have been admitted in the Apollo College and the Mahatma Gandhi College and are pursuing their studies are concerned the Central Government is directed to call for a fresh report from the Veterinary Council of India and to pass appropriate order u/s 15 (2) r/w Section 21 (4) of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. In case it is not possible to recognize the Apollo College and the Mahatma Gandhi College beyond such date as ordered above, the Veterinary Council of India is directed to take steps to transfer the students to some other recognized Colleges against their corresponding year to complete the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course. 50. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 17th November, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur; the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and letters issued by the Veterinary Council of India directing the State Veterinary Council to delete the names of the doctors from their register. The appeals are allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. The interlocutory applications for intervention, impleadment and deletion stand disposed of in view of the finding recorded above. No costs.” 7. In compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, the Central Government published a notification dated 25.9.2014 revalidating and recognizing the degrees conferred to the candidates by the Apollo college between the period of 11.9.2009 to 12.5.2010. 8. By the effect of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the notification dated 25.9.2014, the degrees held by the petitioners, which stood virtually nullified upon de-recognition of the Apollo college by the Veterinary Council, were revived and revalidated and thereby, the petitioners regained the requisite qualification to be appointed as Veterinary Officers in pursuance of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011. 9. While entertaining the instant writ petition no.8934/2012, this Court issued an interim order dated 13.9.2012 directing that if the respondents make any appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Veterinary), in consequence of the selection process initiated under the advertisement dated 8.3.2011, the same shall be subject to final decision of this writ petition. The respondents were further directed that if appointment orders came to be issued, a necessary stipulation regarding pendency of this writ petition and the order dated 13.9.2012 shall be mentioned therein. Similar order was passed in writ petition no.9716/2014 on 6.1.2015. 10. The respondents were further directed that if appointment orders came to be issued, a necessary stipulation regarding pendency of this writ petition and the order dated 13.9.2012 shall be mentioned therein. Similar order was passed in writ petition no.9716/2014 on 6.1.2015. 10. It is further relevant to mention here that pursuant to clearing the screening test, the petitioners herein were initially called for interview by communication dated 16.5.2012, which bore a stipulation to the effect that the invitation was subject to the decision of S.L.P. and the candidature of the concerned candidates would be dependent on the outcome of the aforesaid S.L.P. However, it appears that interviews pursuant to the aforesaid notice were never embarked upon and in the meantime, the Commission took a decision on 15.8.2012 rejecting the candidature of 181 candidates who graduated from those private veterinary institutions whose recognition was cancelled by the Veterinary Council. 11. Armed with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the notification dated 25.9.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the degrees held by the petitioners have to be treated to be in compliance with the advertisement dated 8.3.2011 because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred order dated 25.7.2014 has conclusively held that the Apollo college was required to be treated as recognized uptill 11.7.2011. The petitioners were conferred the degrees on 4.5.2010. They thus contend that the respondent Commission is under an obligation as per law to invite the petitioners for interview and the candidates succeeding in the interview are entitled to be appointed as Veterinary Officers in the selection process of 2011. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that the State Government has itself given appointments to some of the petitioners and other similar candidates on the posts of Veterinary Officers on urgent temporary basis with a note that the appointments shall be subject to the final decision of the matters pending before this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. In pursuance of a direction given by this Court on 16.1.2015, learned Deputy Government Counsel placed on record a letter of Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 2.2.2015, as per which, 665 posts of Veterinary Officers are lying vacant in the State as on date. 14. 13. In pursuance of a direction given by this Court on 16.1.2015, learned Deputy Government Counsel placed on record a letter of Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 2.2.2015, as per which, 665 posts of Veterinary Officers are lying vacant in the State as on date. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concede that in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the interviews and on being offered appointments, they are ready to forego seniority and agree to be placed below the last appointed candidate pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.3.2011. It is further contended that the appointments in pursuance of the selection process continued to be offered till May, 2013. The learned counsel thus pray that the writ petitions be allowed in the terms prayed for. 15. Per contra, Sh.Khet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Commission states that the Commission long back recommended the names of the selected candidates to the State Government vide its communication dated 9.10.2012 and thus, the selection process stands completed. Learned Dy. Govt. counsel states that the last appointment in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Commission was offered till May, 2013. Learned counsel for the respondents contend that as the selection process has already been completed long back, it would be unjust and unfair to permit the petitioners to participate in the said process at such a belated stage. They contend that if the petitioners are given appointments at this belated stage in the selection process of 2011, rights of the candidates appointed earlier shall be adversely affected. They further raise an objection that as the selected candidates have not been impleaded as party respondents to the writ petitions, the same are liable to be rejected for nonjoinder of necessary parties. They further submit that the Commission’s action in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners cannot be termed illegal because admittedly, when the candidature of the petitioners was rejected, the degrees held by the petitioners were required to be treated as issued by an unrecognized institution and further the said action of the Commission was not challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. They further submitted that a new selection process for filling up the freshly assessed vacancies has already been initiated and the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the same, if they so desire. They further submitted that a new selection process for filling up the freshly assessed vacancies has already been initiated and the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the same, if they so desire. They thus pray that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. 16. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 17. The petitioners are apparently the victims of an interse tussle between the Veterinary Council and the private colleges. It is not in dispute that when the petitioners embarked upon their quest for graduation, the Apollo College was recognized by the Veterinary Council. Not only this, the petitioners completed their graduation, were conferred the degrees and their names were duly entered in the Register maintained by the State Veterinary Council. Only thereafter, the Veterinary Council took a decision to de-recognise the Apollo College by letter dated 26.5.2010. Obviously, the petitioners cannot be faulted for having joined the Apollo College for seeking graduation in BVS & AH course because the Apollo College was indeed recognized at the time, when the petitioners undertook the course and acquired their degrees. Misfortune befell the petitioners when the belated decision was taken by the Veterinary Council to derecognize the Apollo college from which the petitioners had graduated. As a result of the Council’s decision, the finances, sweat, blood and hard work which the petitioners invested for pursuing their dreams and getting the degrees, went down the drain. In addition thereto, even though the petitioners cleared the screening test conducted by the Commission, they were further penalized by the action of the respondent Commission in denying them permission to appear for interviews. 18. It cannot be gainsaid that such students who pursue the quest for education in recognized colleges whose recognition is withdrawn or cancelled by the statutory controlling body subsequent to the conferment of degrees cannot be left in lurch merely because the recognizing body takes the belated decision of de-recognition. The decision to derecognize a college cannot be applied retrospectively so as to put the candidates who pursued the course under a valid and bonafide belief of the college being recognized in an irretrievable situation. A similar controversy was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors. A similar controversy was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors. reported (2010) 13 SCC 203 in wherein it was held as below :- “28. A plain reading of provisions suggests that all such institutions offering a course or training in teacher education prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled to continue such course or training until the application is disposed of provided such an application has been made within six months from the appointed day. The consequence of not being able to gain recognition is the discontinuance of the course. Once an application seeking recognition has been filed by the institution within the prescribed period of six months the institution is entitled to continue offering a course or training in teacher education until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. Once the recognition is granted by the Regional Committee to the institution offering a course or training in teacher education, the same shall relate back to the date of filing of application. 29. Section 14(5) read with Section 14(1) enables the institution offering a course or training in teacher education on the appointed day to continue the course or training as the case may be during the pendency of the application seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only at the end of academic session. The institution offering training or course is entitled to award degree or certificate as the case may be.” 19. The same controversy was also examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanuman Lal Harijan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1997(3) WLC (Raj.) 142. It was held by the Division Bench as below :- “In this view of the matter whenever a qualification is de-recognized for the purpose of eligibility it will have totally a prospective effect and qualification acquired before de-recognition would always be treated as valid qualification.” 20. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the S.L.Ps. It was held by the Division Bench as below :- “In this view of the matter whenever a qualification is de-recognized for the purpose of eligibility it will have totally a prospective effect and qualification acquired before de-recognition would always be treated as valid qualification.” 20. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the S.L.Ps. filed against the Division Bench’s order dated 17.11.2011, it is evident that the decision taken by the Veterinary Council to derecognize the Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur, stood rescinded and as a consequence, the degrees held by the petitioners were required to be considered as having been procured from a recognized institution thereby meeting the requirements of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011. In compliance of the above judgment, the Central Government issued the notification dated 25.9.2014 reviving the recognition of the degrees issued by the Apollo college and the petitioners’ degrees stand protected by the said notification. 21. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others. Vs. Tilak Raj Gandhi reported in (2014) 3 SCC 145 . The said judgment is of no relevance to the case at hand and is entirely distinguishable on facts because the candidature of the concerned candidate was rejected on the ground of pendency of CBI enquiry against the candidate. 22. This Court foreseeing such a situation, has already ordered on 13.9.2012 that the process of selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011 shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petition and the appointment orders issued shall bear a condition to this effect. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents admitted that the appointment orders which have been issued so far bear a condition to this effect. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents admitted that the appointment orders which have been issued so far bear a condition to this effect. 23. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the candidates, likely to be affected by the appointments being offered to the petitioners at this belated stage, have not been made party respondents in the writ petition and thus, are likely to be prejudiced, does not carry any force whatsoever and is untenable in view of the above mentioned interim order dated 13.9.2012 and also as the learned counsel for the petitioners have already conceded that the petitioners agree for being placed below the last of selected candidates in the order of seniority in the event of succeeding the interviews and being offered appointment. 24. In view of the discussion made above, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The decision dated 15.8.2012 taken by the respondent Commission rejecting the candidature of the petitioners is hereby quashed. The respondent Commission is directed to invite the petitioners for exclusive interviews to be held for selection process of 2011 in furtherance and in terms of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011 and such of the petitioners who are declared successful in interview, shall be offered appointment on the post of Veterinary Officers. As conceded by the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners so appointed in pursuance of the above directions shall be placed in the order of seniority below the last candidate who has already been given appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011. In the event of being appointed, the petitioners shall be entitled to notional monetary benefits from the date the last candidate was appointed in pursuance to the aforesaid selection process. 25. No order as to cost.