CHATURBHUJ DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") was entitled to relax the qualification in respect of experience in case of candidates for the post of Junior Specialist.

(2.) THE schedule annexed to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") prescribes the following qualifications for appointment to the post of Junior Specialist by direct recruitment :- "5 Yrs. experience in the speciality after post-graduate degree. "

(3.) IT does not appear that there was any infraction of the provisions of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution if the Commission proceeded to make a particular relaxation in the matter of experience. IT cannot be held that persons having experience in the speciality after post graduation formed a separate class and there is no warrant for the proposition that even if the Commission was authorised to make a relaxation in the matter of experience, it should have provided for possession of experience for a number of years after post graduation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the candidates who has been called for interview obtained his post graduate degree in March 1981, just before the last date for submitting applications and as such he had no experience after obtaining the post graduation degree, while the petitioner had worked for more than 2-1/2 years, after obtaining the post graduate degree and that the petitioner should have been preferred to the former. I have already pointed above that the criteria about experience adopted by the Commission in the present case was the same as was prescribed in the Rules for appointment by promotion. I am unable to hold in these circumstances that the relaxation in the matter of expedience, made by the Commission in the qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Specialist by direct recruitment, could be held to be discriminatory in any manner as the relaxed qualifications were uniformly applied to all the candidates without any distinction. There could be different forms of relaxation in respect of experience, which could legitimately be allowed by the Commission and it is difficult to say that one form of relaxation as was allowed by the Commission must be considered to be bad and that different form as suggested by the petitioner should have been necessarily adopted. If the Commission has a discretion in the matter it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Commission so long as it is not found that similar persons have been treated differently and that any discirimi-nation was made while applying the criteria adopted by the Commission.