BINA M CHERIAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS by the aforesaid writ-petitions some filed individually and some jointly, challenge refusal of admission to them in the training course conducted by the State of Rajasthan for training Multi-purpose Health Workers, for short 'm. H. W'. The State Government issued an advertisement on 30. 3. 1991 in viting applications for twenty seven districts keeping sixty seats in each training centre for lady candidates, who had passed secondary examination and condition No. 1 of that Notification is that person applying for getting training as M. H. W. should be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan, which is a course of eighteen months duration. The training will be imparted to lady health workers who will have to work in rural areas and will have to independently look after the health, family planning, nutrition, child health, family welfare and rural organisational activity in the villages. They have not to work under the Doctors as nurses but they will have to independently travel the villages for the aforesaid purposes. Not only this, it was also provided in the ratification that for the training centres, established at Jaisalmer, Barmer and in the backward districts of Dungarpur, Sirohi and Banswara, the trainees will be selected only from those very districts and persons from other districts who are bonafide residents of Rajasthan will only be accommodated if requisite number of candidates from those very districts, are not available for training and after imparting training, they will be given employment in those very districts. One has only to apply for getting training at one centre and those who apply for more than one centres, their applications will be rejected. It was also provided that if anybody has any grievance against his non-selection in the course, she may file an application before the Director, Medical & Health within one month of the publication of the selection list. On the basis of this notification, petitioners, filled-up their forms for getting admission in the course. A notification also came to be issued on 17. 5. 91 in which it was provided that the candidates will have to abide by the conditions, mentioned in the notification dated 30. 3. 1991. The personnel of the Committee who will select the candidates for each centre was also nominated and it was claimed that the admissions will be finalised by 30. 6. 91. It has been claimed that this condition that one should be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan is unreasonable, unjust and arbitrary, and, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it results in denial of opportunity of employment and, therefore, it is violative of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It was claimed that the department itself has given permission to admit persons to the course by an order dated 24. 10. 1991 which has been filed as Annex. RJ/2 in the writ - petition, filed by Pennamma M. A. in the training centres of Pali, Samdari (Banner), Sirohi and Jaisalmer. It was further submitted that the department itself has permitted the transfer of trainees from one centre to another centre to relaxing the condition No. 10 of the Notification dated 30. 3. 1991 and has permitted transfers vide its order dated 16. 12. 91 marked as Annex. RJ/3 in the writ petition, filed by Pennamma M. A. bearing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5864/91. Thus, when the department itself has issued orders for admission of the persons to the course in the month of October and has permitted the transfers to the candidates in the month of December, they cannot object to the admissions that have been granted under the orders of this Court. Certain instructions have been issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sirohi on 3. 7. 1991 copy whereof has been filed as Annex. 4. The condition No. 12 of Notification dt. 30/3/1991 is that during the training, requirements as regards attendance, leave etc. and other conditions of the training instructions that have been issued from time to time by the Rajasthan Nursing Council or by the department, will be applicable and accordingly by these instructions which have been issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sirohi, it was provided that during the entire training period, petitioners will be granted thirty days vacation and ten days' Medical Leave and the attendance in the lectures to the extent of seventy five percent will be compulsory otherw'se petitioners will be debarred from taking up the examination. These instructions are general in nature and are applicable to every course to be run by every centre. While stating the general facts, it will be useful to give some individual details of the writ petitions. Petitioner Bina Cherian who filed her writ petition bearing No. 4734/91 on 12. 9. 1991, selected her centre as Sirohi. Petitioner K. P. Letha who filed her writ petition bearing No. 962/92 on 17. 2. 1992 selected her centre as Dholpur. PETITIONERS Anamma Lukosh & Adamol P. T. who have filed their writ petition bearing No. 2381/92 on 25. 4. 92, selected their centre as Chittorgarh. Petitioner Lija Jhori who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 2380/92 on 25. 4. 1992, selected her centre as Banswara. Petitioner T. Sindhu who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 4115 of 1992 on 4. 8. 92, selected her centre as Bikaner. PETITIONERS Miss. Rajni, Miss Jeejji K. G. and Miss Sojimall Kurian who have filed their writ petition bearing No. 2840 of 1992 on 18. 5. 1992, selected their centre as Bikaner. Petitioner Pennamma M. A. who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 5864/91 on 21. 10. 1991, selected her centre as Sirohi. Petitioner Rebecar who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 1811/92 on 24/3/1992, selected her centre as Banswara. PETITIONERS Baby Mathew and Annama P. C. who have filed their writ petition bearing No. 958/1992 on 17. 2. 92, selected their centre as Sirohi. Petitioner Lissy T. V. who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 1222/92 on 28. 2. 1992, selected her centre as Sirohi. Petitioner Bindu K. S. who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 1281/92 on 3. 3. 92, selected her centre as Banswara. Petitioner Anama Kurian who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 1280/92 on 3. 3. 1992, selected her centre as Nagaur. Since they are Keratites and not bonafide residents of Rajasthan but are living here, therefore, they have not been given admission in the course. Petitioner bushila who is a resident of Ajmer, filed her writ petition bearing No. 2719/92 on 11. 5. 1992 selecting her centre as Jalore for her admission. PETITIONERS Narendra Kaur, Pavinder Kaur, Bhupendra Kaur and Sarabjeet Kaur, all residents of Ganganagar, have filed their writ petition bear-in gno. 1823/92 on 24. 3. 92 selecting their centre as Ganganagar but in the T. I. granted in their favour on 3. 4. 92, they have been allocated Jaisalmer centre. Likewise Neeta who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 1824,92 on 24. 3. 1992 is a resident of Salumber and has applied for admission in Udaipur centre. She has not given the total marks, obtained by her or percentage of marks but she states that she is at merit No. 2 in the select list. By a T. I. dated 3. 4. 92, she has been admitted in Udaipur centre. PETITIONERS Manjula Vaishnav, Beena Gehlot and Praveena belonging to Banswara and Bagidogra have filed a joint petition bearing No. 1825/92 claiming that they stand in merit at Nos. 6, 1 and 7 respectively but inspite of the fact that they are meritorious, they have been denied admission. Likewise Smt. Usha Devi who has filed her writ petition bearing No. 2382 of 1992 on 25. 4. 92, belongs to Bhagakot Distt. Bapswara and she has selected her centre at Banswara but she has been refused admission and in her case, a T-I- was granted on 4. 5. 92 granting admission in the course at Jaisalmer.

(2.) PETITIONER Bina M. Cherian in her writ petition bearing No. 4734/91 has claimed that although she got more marks than the last person, admitted but she has been refused admission simply because she belongs to Kerala whereas admission has been given to Lija Jhon who also belongs to her native place and, therefore, admission should not have been refused to her. In reply on behalf of the State Govt. , it has been claimed that Lija Jhon had produced a certificate of bonafide resident of Rajasthan and, therefore, she was given admission and admission to Bina M. Cherian has been refused because she is not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. However, she was given provisional admission on 19. 9. 1992, as an interim measure by this Court. PETITIONER K. P. Letha has not stated that how many marks she has got and what is her percentage of marks but she has stated that she obtained requisite percentage of marks and her name finds place in the merit list but she has been denied admission because she did not belong to Rajasthan. This condition is only a guideline and it is not a rule and, therefore, she ought to have been given admission. However, she was granted provisional admission in the centre of Dholpur by an interim order dated 18/2/1992. In reply, it has been claimed that she was lower in merit and, therefore, she was ineligible to be admitted for training and she has been refused admission because she is not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. It has further been claimed that the condition that one should be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan to get admission to the course, is a reasonable condition because the persons who are poor and below the poverty line in this backward area have to be helped in granting admission to the training course because they cannot compete with educated people of other States and, therefore, there is no violation of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. A reply has been filed in writ-petition No. 2381/92 wherein to the claim of the petitioners Anamma Lukosh and Adamol P. T. that they secured requisite marks and their names appeared in the merit list, the State has taken a plea that this is highly belated petition which has been filed after one year. A Division Bench of this Court in Meena Kumari vs. State (1) has observed that in a course of duration of 18 months, one cannot be admitted after eight months. As the writ petitions are highly belated, admission should be refused because training has got a meaning and it is not an empty formality. It was further claimed that there is no vacancy and condition of bonafide resident of Rajasthan can be imposed by the State Govt. In reply to this writ petition, it was also claimed that the State Govt. has a right to give preference to the residents of Rajasthan and that it is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It may be stated here that although the State has taken the plea that it can give preference to the persons belonging to the Rajasthan but so far as notification dated 30. 3. 91 is concerned, it is not a case of giving preference to the persons belonging to Rajasthan. There is an exclusive reservation for the bonafide residents of Rajasthan. Nobody else can be given admission in this training course and, therefore, it is a case of total exclusion of others who are not bonafide residents of Rajasthan. It is not a case of giving preference to the persons belonging to the Rajasthan. Miss Lija Jhon has also claimed that she secured requisite marks and her name existed in the select list but she has been refused admission because she is not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. In reply, it was claimed that she is much below in merit at No. 197. Her name does not even appear in the waiting list. Persons higher ill merit than her i. e. Loji George having her merit at No. 182, Harbinder Kaur standing in merit at No. 183, Usha standing in merit at No. 184, Mithilesh standing in merit at No. 185, Veer Kaur standing in merit at No. 186 and T. S. S. A. standing in merit at No. 187, have not been given admission and, therefore, person standing in merit at No 197 could not have been given admission. This condition of bonafide resident has been imposed to bridge the pool of language and to provide the stable service who are accustomed to the atmosphere, conditions & climate of this place. A reply has also been filed in the case of Pennamma M. A. but that has not been tagged-with the record. A rejoinder to the reply has also been filed by Mr. Kalla on behalf of Pennamma M. A. in which it has been claimed that admissions have been given upto 24. 10. 1991 and 16. 12. 1991 and the last person admitted is Narayan Singh securing 31. 18% markes whereas petitioner has obtained 35. 5% marks.

(3.) I have already stated that this training course is a specialised type of training course and it has nothing to do with the rules that have been framed to govern the nursing course and, therefore, it is for the State Govt. to re-frame these rules in a manner where preference should be given to the bonafide residents of Rajasthan and if some vacancies still remain unfilled then the same be filled-up by the general category of candidates. Such a direction is possible as per the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration vs. Manpreet Singh (3) and, therefore, the State Government is accordingly directed to re-consider a change in the rules in the light of the aforesaid observations.