Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 721 (RAJ)

Shruti Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-26

AJIT SINGH, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a student of Final Year-Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. The advertisement was issued on 01.06.2013 for recruitment on 1545 posts of Medical Officers. She did not apply, as she had not completed the Course, and was not eligible upto the date of application i.e.30.06.2013. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to quash Rule 19 of the amendment notification dated 13.05.2013 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013, providing for 30% bonus marks to the contractual employees. She has also prayed for directions to the respondents to accept her application, as the selections are still pending, and though, she had not completed the qualification, to be eligible to apply, she has thereafter, completed the Course, during the pendency of the selections, which have not been concluded so far. 4. We find substance in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible to apply, and that, she in fact, did not apply for the post, in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 01.06.2013. The petitioner completed the Course on 21.07.2014, and will be completing the Internship on 23.07.2015, which is included in the eligibility of the candidate to apply for the post. 5. The selections cannot be held up, and that, the persons, who acquire the eligibility, cannot be permitted to apply, on the ground that they have acquired eligibility, during the pendency of the selections. The vacancies were worked out upto the year 2013, which were advertised for selections. The petitioner was not eligible for selections in the year 2013, and even as on date, as she would complete the internship on 23.07.2015. We are informed that the selections were held up, on account of an issue of award of bonus marks, which has since been decided by Division Bench of this Court, reducing the bonus mark to 15%, against which the State Government has withdrawn the Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court. 6. We do not find that the petitioner had acquired any right to file the writ petition. She was not eligible on the date of making application, nor is she eligible even today, to apply, to give her any opportunity to apply for the selections notified on 01.06.2013. 7. 6. We do not find that the petitioner had acquired any right to file the writ petition. She was not eligible on the date of making application, nor is she eligible even today, to apply, to give her any opportunity to apply for the selections notified on 01.06.2013. 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. We make it clear that in view of the fact that the petitioner is not eligible, we have not examined the validity of the Rules, challenged in the Writ Petition.