GHANSHYAM SINGH SENGER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that although he was appointed on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse vide order dated 19.3.2002. the respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 3.4.2002 (Annex.4) cancelling his appointment. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 3.4.2002 and prays that he be reinstated on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse with all consequential benefits.

(2.) IN the reply submitted by respondents it has been averred that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse and when the mistake came into knowledge the order of appointment was reviewed. The respondents have further averred in the reply that the name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 86 in the merit list of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse and the petitioner secured 61.17% marks, whereas one other candidate Niranjan Sharma was placed at Sr. No. 85 also secured the same marks. But as the petitioner was younger in age in comparison to Niranjan Sharma, it was decided that elder person be given appointment. Thus Niranjan Sharma was given appointment on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse.

(3.) MR . Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner has invited my attention to the Rules 20 and 22 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (for short '1966, Rules '). Proviso appended to Rule 22 of the 1966, Rules provides that the inclusion of a candidate's name in the list confers no right to appointment unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that such candidate is suitable in all other respects for appointment to the post concerned. In view of the said provision it is contended that the respondents ought to have prepared the merit list on the basis of suitability of candidate and the suitability ought to have been adjudged on the basis of the past educational record of the candidate. As there is no provision in the 1966, Rules to determine the seniority on the basis of age the policy decision taken by respondents for giving preference to the person who is elder in the age cannot be sustained.