Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 221 (UTT)

Kamljeet Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-18

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. Anchit Khokhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. BPS Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent no.1, Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, and Mr. Hemant Pant, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Sr. Counsel for respondent no.4; and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos.2 and 3 to permit him to participate in the recruitment process, and to re-appear in the interview/verification of documents. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that petitioner, a graduate in Medicine from Kathmandu, Nepal, appeared and qualified in the Screening Test for Indian Nationals with Foreign Medical Qualification conducted by the National Board of Examinations on 30.09.2007. He was awarded the MBBS Degree from Kathmandu (Nepal) in the year 2008. He was registered with the Medical Council of India vide certificate dated 5.8.2008. He initially worked in the Loknayak Hospital at Delhi from 12.11.2008 to 11.11.2009, and thereafter got himself registered in the year 2010 with the Uttarakhand Medical Council. He worked, thereafter, on a contractual basis at the L.D. Bhatt Government Hospital, Kashipur. 4. Advertisement dated 30.11.2009 was issued to fill up 314 posts of medical officers under the Uttarakhand Provincial Medical & Health Services Cadre. The advertisement stipulated 02.01.2020 as the last date for submission of the online application form. Clause 6 of the said advertisement required the applicants to be registered with the Uttarakhand State Medical Council. The petitioner applied for the said post. A reject list was prepared by the second respondent on 31.01.2020, which included the petitioners name. The petitioners candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner was asked to appear for interview/verification of documents on 6.3.2020. During verification, the Recruitment Board objected to the validity of the certificate of registration issued by the Uttarakhand Medical Counsel, as the date of issue printed in the registration certificate was 22.04.2010. The petitioner was informed that the said certificate was valid only for 5 years, and not thereafter. During verification, the Recruitment Board objected to the validity of the certificate of registration issued by the Uttarakhand Medical Counsel, as the date of issue printed in the registration certificate was 22.04.2010. The petitioner was informed that the said certificate was valid only for 5 years, and not thereafter. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the third respondent on the very same day i.e. 6.3.2020, and to have been orally communicated by the third respondent that his representation will be duly considered by the Board. On the ground that the third respondent did not communicate its decision, the petitioner submitted another representation on 16.3.2020, and, since the selection process is likely to be completed shortly, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The Uttaranchal Medical Council Act, 2002 extends to the entire State of Uttarakhand. Section 22(1) thereof stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 15, renewal of registration shall be done every five years. The petitioners registration with the Uttarakhand State Medical Council was on 22.04.2010, and the five year period expired on 22.04.2015. Clause 6 of the advertisement requires the applicants to be registered with the Uttarakhand State Medical Council, and since the petitioners certificate of registration expired on 22.04.2015, he did not have a valid certificate of registration on the last date of application i.e. 2.1.2020. 6. While Mr. Anchit Khokhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would seek indulgence of this Court, and contend that the petitioner was unaware of the requirements of the Act and the need to renew registration once every five years, the conditions stipulated in the advertisement are applicable uniformly to all applicants. Since the petitioner did not have a valid registration certificate on the last date of submission of the applicant form i.e. 2.1.2020, the respondents cannot be faulted in not permitting him to appear in the interview on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. 7. We see no error on the part of the Selection Board in rejecting the petitioners candidature for selection to the advertised post. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.