MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common controversy is involved in a bunch of writ petitions, hence are being disposed of at joint request, at admission stage, by present order.

(2.) Instant petitions have been filed basically with the grievance that R.19 of Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963 ("Rules, 1963")has not been complied with while the process of selection pursuant to advertisement dt.18/09/2009 being held by Rajasthan Public Service Commission ("PSC"). Factual matrix relevant for consideration is that advertisement was issued by the PSC on 18/09/2009 initially notifying 540 vacancies of Medical Officers, which was later on enhanced to 1214 in various categories; pursuant to which since large number of applications were received, the Commission took decision for short-listing number of applicants by way of screening test being held on 05/12/2010 - result whereof was declared on 24/12/2010. However, Full Commission took decision to invite candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:2, meaning thereby twice the number of vacancies advertised, are to be called for selection. Interviews were held from 12/01/2011 and continued for a month upto 14/02/2011. At this stage, it is relevant to record that a bunch of writ petitions were filed (CWP- 343/2011 (Nishant & Ors Vs. State) & three other CWP-384/2011, 396/2011, & 400/2011), in which grievance was raised that as per Explanation below Note (2) of advertisement dt.18/09/2009, a candidate was to submit his degree of MBBS on the date of interview, meaning thereby, for being eligible, candidate must have completed rotating internship of 12 months till the date of interview, which was challenged on the premise that examining their eligibility which includes rotating internship on the date of interview is totally fortuitous circumstance; more so when they had passed out their examination - as a result whereof, they were registered with the medical council; as such conditions under Explanation below Note (2) , is arbitrary and in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. The contention was examined by Co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dt.13/01/2011 while dismissing CWP- 343/2011 (Nishant & Ors Vs. State) & cognate cases , wherein taking note of Ord.268 (d) of the University Ordinances, which provides -

(3.) Basic grievance raised in bunch of instant petitions is that R.19 of Rules, 1963 authorizes the Public Service Commission ("PSC") to scrutinize applications received pursuant to advertisement and require as many candidates qualified for appointment as seem to them desirable to be called for interview; but out of list of candidates having been declared to be qualified in screening test in the ratio of 1:2, there are large number of applicants who were not qualified & eligible in terms of advertisement impugned, as they were not holding 12 months rotating internship on the date of interview held; yet they were permitted to participate in process of selection; and on account of in-eligible candidates being included and called for interview in the ratio of 1:2, candidates like petitioners despite being eligible in terms of advertisement impugned have been deprived of their participation in process of selection resulting in depriving them of their right of fair consideration; and action of respondents is in violation of R.19 of Rules, 1963.