Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1782 (RAJ)

Sulochna v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-08

AJAY RASTOGI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. This is second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioners, who are the participants for the post of ANM which came to be advertised vide Notification dt. 26.02.2013. 2. Initially, they approached this court with the grievance that they have secured 66.496 & 65.915 marks respectively whereas the last cut-off marks in OBC category are 63.056 and still have not been considered for appointment. 3. This court at the motion stage disposed of the matter on their contention vide order dt. 11.02.2016 with liberty to the petitioners to make representation, to be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law. 4. In compliance of order of the court, application was submitted by the petitioners & that was examined by the competent authority and detailed order assigning reasons came to be passed dt. 20.04.2016 (Annex.14) and finally it has been stated that as per the procedure for determination of marks prescribed by the authority in its advertisement, the petitioners secured 62.671 & 62.85 marks respectively and the cut off marks of OBC category is 63.056 and accordingly were not in the order of merit to be considered for appointment and the criteria on the basis of which the petitioners secured 62.671 & 62.85 marks respectively have been elaborately referred to and it has been stated that earlier the candidates who were affected by the procedure held by the respondents in determining the merit pursuant to the selection process initiated by the respondents vide advertisement dt. 26.02.2013 and those batch of writ petitions (CWP No. 15961/2015 & 17 other Writ Petitions) came to be decided by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dt. 16.12.2015 and one of the grievance raised by the candidates before the court was regarding the marks which are awarded for holding the qualifying examination undertaken from the statutory Board and credence by & large attached to the examination conducted by the independent agency and not by private institutes. 5. While examining the question the coordinate Bench of this court answered to the submission made by the parties and expressed its view and this court considers it appropriate to quote the relevant para of the judgment dt. 16.12.2015 ad infra:- "I have considered the submissions. The required course in Nursing is provided with different duration in different institutions. 5. While examining the question the coordinate Bench of this court answered to the submission made by the parties and expressed its view and this court considers it appropriate to quote the relevant para of the judgment dt. 16.12.2015 ad infra:- "I have considered the submissions. The required course in Nursing is provided with different duration in different institutions. In some institutions, duration of the course is one and a half year, whereas, in others, course is of two years duration. In view of above, similarity of duration of course does not exist. In majority of institutions where Nursing Course is provided, the examination and award of marks are by independent agency and not by the institution itself other than in CBSE. Looking to the aforesaid, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India; the Indian Nursing Council has revised the eligibility criteria for admission in Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery (ANM) course. It is now after 10+2 instead of 10th. The CBSE is thus not imparting education in the course of Nursing after the amendment yet there are few candidates who had taken admission prior to the amendment in the Rules. This court is of the opinion that confidence can be deposed in the course if the marks are awarded by the independent agency after holding examination. If one and the same institution impart education and conduct examination and thereupon assessment of the answer sheet, then it cannot depose required confidence. In view of above, State of Rajasthan is directed to reconsider the issue so that the assessment of merit may be based by proper assessment of percentage of marks of eligible candidates. As a consequence of the aforesaid, State of Rajasthan would consider as to whether the total marks obtained by the candidates passing out Nursing Course from the CBSE should be taken into consideration or should be of the marks awarded by the CBSE ignoring the marks awarded by the institution for the first year. The consideration would obviously be in the light of the observations made by this court. They would also consider that subsequently even rule had been amended to provide eligibility for appearance in the Nursing Course and, as a consequence of which, CBSE has not continued the Nursing Course further." 6. The consideration would obviously be in the light of the observations made by this court. They would also consider that subsequently even rule had been amended to provide eligibility for appearance in the Nursing Course and, as a consequence of which, CBSE has not continued the Nursing Course further." 6. The representation of the petitioners was considered by the authority in compliance of order of the court, keeping in view the observations made by this court of which reference has been made supra and that apart merits of the petitioners were also examined in awarding marks which they secured in their CBSE Examination & found to be in conformity with what was expressed by this court while disposing of the earlier batch of writ petitions. 7. It is not the case of the petitioners that according to the procedure which has been followed in determining their merit keeping in view the observations made by this court in the batch of writ petitions, they secured the marks over & above the cut-off marks of OBC which is 63.056 but their submission is that this court only made certain observations regarding the procedure to be followed while determining the marks secured by the individual in the statutory Board examination but what is the criteria which the respondents have followed keeping in view the observations made by this court in the earlier batch of writ petition is not reflected in the order impugned and if that decision, if any, has taken by the Appointing Authority is also not reflected from the order impugned. 8. The submissions made are wholly bereft of merits for the reason that while disposing of the earlier batch of writ petitions, this court vide its order dt. 16.12.2015, in its unequivocal terms made observations as to what should be the marks which has to be taken care of by the authority while determining the marks of the candidate who has participated in the process pursuant to the advertisement and if that has been taken care of while determining the marks of the candidates secured in CBSE Examination, of which a detailed reference has been made supra, this court finds no error in the decision making process adopted by the authority while determining the marks secured by the petitioners, indicated in the order impugned dt. 20.04.2016 which indisputably is lower than the cut-off marks of OBC Category which is 63.056 marks, the petitioners indeed have not been able to achieve. 9. After having heard counsel for the petitioners, this court finds no substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 10. Consequently, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed.