SANTRA DEVI GARHWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APART from challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '2013 Rules') effecting amendment to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '1965 Rules') so far as it enhances/modifies the academic and other qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment to that post pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.2.2013 initiating a process therefor. In the alternative, an appropriate direction has also been requested to be issued to the respondents to grant relaxation to her in the matter of the amended qualification so prescribed by the 2013 Rules so as to construe her to be eligible for being considered for appointment to the post in question by direct recruitment.

(2.) WE have heard Dr.Saugath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it necessary to issue formal notice. The petitioner claims to have passed the secondary examination in the year 2011 and also possessed of One Year Certificate Course from Chandra Mohan Jha University, Meghalaya in the year 2012. She belongs to the OBC. She has averred that as per the 1965 Rules, the conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician had been secondary or its equivalent with 9 months Training Certificate from a institute recognized by the government, and in absence thereof, secondary or its equivalent with Two Years Training Certificate of Laboratory Technology Course run by Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur or B.Sc. with Biology with Post Graduate Diploma in Laboratory Technology from MDS University, Ajmer with Hospital based Training in the JLN Medical College, Ajmer recognized by the government. By the 2013 Rules, the conditions of eligibility have been modified as hereunder:-

(3.) DR .Roy has argued that the alteration in the conditions of eligibility introduced by the 2013 Rules is illogical and unwarranted, besides being unfair and discriminatory. The learned counsel has urged that whereas, the academic and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment have been modified, the earlier norms have been retained for the in-service candidates for promotion against the 15% quota in the posts. Contending that the petitioner also is serving in the post of Laboratory Technician in a project, and that, she is otherwise suitable to be inducted thereto by direct recruitment by all means, learned counsel has insisted that in the face of the existing vacancies, a direction ought to be issued to the respondents, in the alternative, to relax the conditions of eligibility prescribed by 2013 Rules vis-a-vis the petitioner and to consider her case for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are not inclined to sustain these contentions.