STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. VISHNU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4734 / 93 - Vishnu Lal v. State of Rajasthan and another, dated 21-9-1993, whereby the learned single Judge has relied on two decisions of this Court rendered in Brijesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1235 / 90), decided on 6-8-1992 and Dharam Singh v. State (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 405 / 91), decided on 7-10-1991, and allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the General Nursing Training Course by treating him eligible and admit him to that course, provided he finds place in order of merit amongst the candidates already admitted within a period of one week. It is this order which has been challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the State on the ground that these two decisions which have been relied upon by the learned single Judge pertained to the cases of admissions which were made in the General Nursing Course prior to the notification dated 16-1-1991 whereby rules were framed for admission to the General Nursing Course. These rules are now statutory rules and have been framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Government under Section 33 of the Rajasthan Nurses Midwives, Health Visitors and A.N.M. Registration Act, 1964 (Rajasthan Act No. 9 of 1964) wherein certain qualifications for admission have been prescribed and they are as follows :

(2.) It was contended by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that earlier there were no statutory rules and when, the applications were invited for the General Nursing Course of the year 1988-89 the qualification for admission prescribed by that notification was that a person should have cleared the first year T.D.C. or should have cleared 10 + 2 but it was provided that preference will be given to those persons who have cleared science subjects. When the notification for the course 1988-89 was issued, the eligibility was further clarified and it was provided that although the person will be eligible for admission if he has cleared first year T. D.C. or 10 + 2 but preference will be given to the persons who have cleared science subjects, i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Now these notifications / circulars, which do not have any statutory force have been superseded by the aforesaid rules promulgated on 16-1-1991 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33 of the aforesaid rules. He has, therefore, submitted that these two decisions cannot be made applicable to the eligibility criteria which has been laid down by the aforesaid rules of 1991.

(3.) Mr. K. C. Samdaria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in Brijesh Kumar's case the petitioner was granted admission because he had cleared optional subjects as Agricultural Botany, Agricultural Climatology and Agricultural -oology which are equivalent to Physics. According to him an equivalence has been provided to these agricultural subjects as optional subjects in science, i.e., Physics, Chemistry and Biology by a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court rendered in Dharam Singh's case. While deciding that case, the learned single Judge has also relied on a decision rendered in Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University (AIR 1989 SC 823 para 17). Thus, the contention of Mr. Samdaria is that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the persons who have been admitted in the Course and, therefore, his claim for admission is much sounder than the persons who have been admitted being lower in merit. Moreover, he has submitted that eight seats are still vacant and, therefore, petitioner's case should be considered for admission to the General Nursing Training Course.