Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2271 (RAJ)

Shivani Kumari Sahu v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-22

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed to challenge the action of the respondents whereby the merit list is being prepared for giving appointment on the post of ANM on the basis of marks obtained in Secondary School Examination. The petitioners have prayed that the direction may be given to the respondents to prepare the merit list as per the qualification of Senior Secondary (10+2). 2. Learned Dy. Government Counsel Mr. Vivek Tyagi, appearing for the respondents, submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions has been decided by the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur vide order dated 11th July, 2019 in the case of Arti Vaishnav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13275/2018) along with other connected writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel submits that the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has upheld action of the respondent - State to prepare the merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in 10th standard. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Arti Vaishnav & Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "8. This Court is of the opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioners in these proceedings cannot be justly granted. The mere fact that INC prescribed that in order to obtain registration as ANM, a candidate has to clear minimum 12th Standard or Senior Secondary School Examination as the minimum educational qualification, per-se doe not over-right the State's conscious policy to retain pre-existing educational qualification for the purpose of recruitment to its posts or its services. In this regard, the State's explanation that for the moment it does not wish to prescribe the higher educational eligibility condition of 12th Standard having regard to the large number of registered ANMs, who possessed 10th Standard, which would exclude them from the choice of employment, looking to it, the Court cannot characterize it as arbitrary. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No. 22 & 23 held as under: "22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No. 22 & 23 held as under: "22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a Rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. 23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. must be understood in the context of a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific Rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned." For the same reason and given the fact that a large number of registered ANM exists, who do not possess 12th standard and whose chance of recruitment would be drastically curtailed even though they might be otherwise more experienced than freshly qualified registered candidates with 12th Standard qualification, also persuades this Court not to grant relief in these proceedings. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also admitted that the controversy has been decided by the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and as such, the issue with regard to preparation of merit list for the post of ANM on the basis of the marks obtained in the examination of Secondary School no more survives. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions have no force and accordingly, the same are dismissed. 6. A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.