PRESANNA KUMARI K K Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by means of.this writ petition sought a mandamus against the respondents to permit her to join the training of female Health Workers which was to commence in March, 1990.

(2.) THE Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) issued a notification dated 15.2.1990 (Annex. 1) inviting applications for selection of sixty multiple female Health Workers. It was mentioned in the said notification that the applicant must have passed the secondary examination and that in the selection, preference shall only be given to a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. Petitioner who had passed secondary school leaving certificate examination, also applied for the said course. Out of 60 seats advertised vide Annex. 1, 30% seats were reserved for the S.C/S.T. candidates. However, only four candidates belonging to S.C/S.T. applied and, therefore, all of them were selected for the said course. The parties are not at dispute that after considering all the applications, the respondents prepared a provisional list of 59 candidates including the S.C. and S.T. candidates. The respondents thereafter also published a list of 47 candidates who were bonafide residents of Rajasthan and also had acquired education qualifications in Rajasthan. Out of those 47 candidates, only 37 candidates were selected because the remaining candidates failed to furnish requisite documents for verification. It is also an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner's name appeared at S. No. 52 in the provisional merit list. The respondents also prepared a separate list of those candidates who had submitted domicile certificates of Rajasthan but had acquired educational qualification from other States and in that list, petition's name appeared at S. No. 27. Petitioner's case is that out of 60 available seats, only 34 candidates were permitted to join the training while 26 seats were lying vacant and that the respondents did not permit her to join the training on the pretext that there were certain irregularities in the selection and some enquiry was going on. Petitioner's case is that the respondents have failed to discharge their legal obligations and that similarly selected candidates have already been permitted to join their training while she has been denied to join the training and has been subjected to hostile discrimination.

(3.) THIS Court by its ad interim order dated 13.9.1990 directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to provisionally join the training at her own risk if her name appeared in the merit list and she was otherwise qualified. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner was permitted to join the training. The ad interim order dt. 13.9.90 was confirmed on 26.4.1991. Thereafter, by this Court's order dated 17.12.1991, petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination and it was ordered that the result shall be withheld subject to the decision of this writ petition. Again after hearing the parties, this Court by its order dated 4.8.92 directed the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner but the same has not been declared so far.