PRIYANKA SHARMA Vs. STATE (AYURVED DEPARTMENT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions seek to challenge Conditions No. 15 and 21 of the Advertisement No. 1/2012 dated 30/4/2012. While in some of the writ petitions, challenge is made to Condition No. 15 thereof, whereby consideration for appointment was restricted to only such candidates, who acquired eligibility prior to 15/9/2008, with the prayer that as per stipulation of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 2008 (for short, the "Rules of 2008"), 1/1/2013 should be fixed as the cut -off date for determination of eligibility. In some of the writ petitions, however, prayer has been made for quashing Condition No. 2.1 of Advertisement No. 1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 whereunder the criteria for selection has been given in which 40 marks have been allotted for educational qualification, 30 for experience and 30 for interview. Such challenge is made on the ground of lack of clearly defined criteria and transparency. However, there is one set of writ petitions, which pray that the process of selection should be confined to only those candidates, who acquired educational qualification prior to 15/9/2008. This litigation is an off -shoot of the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Anoop Indoria vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5259/2009 and 24 connected writ petitions rendered on 29/4/2011, which was upheld by the division bench in Mahendra Upadhyaya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1018/2011, dismissing the Special Appeal vide judgment dated 31/10/2011 and also by the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP filed there against vide judgment dated 26/3/2012. Under challenge in all those writ petitions was the process of recruitment undertaken by the respondents by recourse to Part -IV of the Rules of 2008 containing the procedure for initial recruitment of service. Respondents originally issued advertisement No. 1/2008 on 21/7/2008 in accordance with provisions contained in Rules 25 and 26 of Part -IV of the Rules of 2008 for appointment on 320 posts of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak. Challenge to the said process of selection was made on the ground that criteria for determination of merit was not disclosed inasmuch as, the respondents have only on the basis of interview selected mostly those candidates, who were already working with them on contract basis. The single bench upholding those arguments, allowed the writ petitions with the following directions: -

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions argued that originally when Advertisement No. 1/2008 was issued on 21/7/2008, 320 posts of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak were notified with the condition that age of eligibility would be determined with reference to cut -off date viz. 1/1/2009, although further stipulation was made that number of posts may be decreased or increased. Advertisement No. 1/2012 dated 30/4/2012 has been issued in continuation of the earlier advertisement No. 1/2008 dated 21/7/2008. The respondents have therein increased 58 posts and selection is now being made for 378 posts. The Single Judge of this Court in Anoop Indoria supra by a common judgment dated 29/4/2011 cancelled the earlier recruitment being satisfied that the selection was conducted in a most unfair manner and directed selection against those very vacancies to be held afresh after laying down fresh criterion. Eligibility of candidates as per their qualification will have to be therefore determined with reference to the cut -off date of 1/1/2009, given in the earlier advertisement. It is argued that as per settled proposition of service jurisprudence, eligibility requirement of the candidate seeking a public employment must be fulfilled on the cut -off date appointed in the relevant service rules. Even if there is no cut -off date appointed by the rules, then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement inviting applications. And if there is no such date appointed, then the eligibility criteria shall be applied with reference to the last date by which the applications were to be received.

(3.) Learned counsel argued that this was a case of initial recruitment under Chapter -IV of the Rules of 2008 and only those, who have acquired qualification according to cut off given in the advertisement dated 21/7/2008, should be treated as eligible. In other words, learned counsel argued that such of the candidates, who acquired eligibility qualification subsequent to the date of receipt of application or the date with reference to which the eligibility as per earlier advertisement dated 21/7/2008 was to be examined, are liable to be treated ineligible. It is further argued that any other interpretation would result in anomalous situation in that, if as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, date of eligibility on the basis of advertisement dated 30/4/2012 is taken to be 1/1/2013, as is being argued on behalf of some of the writ petitioners, it would render many candidates, who participated in the earlier process of selection, ineligible as they would have on that date crossed the over age. This would amount to change of criteria in the midst of process of selection and would be contrary to the settled proposition of law laid down.