Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Kanta Bhatnagar
Kanhaiya Lal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 317 of 1987
Decided On : 02/20/1987
NURSING ADMISSION - RESERVATION - VALIDITY - RAJASTHAN NURSES, MIDWIVES, HEALTH VISITORS AND AUXILIARY NURSE-MIDWIVES REGISTRATION ACT, 1964 - RULES AND REGULATIONS - SECTION 33 AND 34 - ARTICLES 14, 15, 29 AND 46 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNCIL REGULATIONS, 1964 - REGULATION 42 - INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL REGULATIONS - SECTION 16 - ARTICLES 14, 15 AND 29 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - KUMARI CHITRA GHOSH VS. UNION OF INDIA - N. VASUNDARA VS. STATE OF MYSORE - DR. JAGDISH SARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA - DR. PRADEEP JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA - SURENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR - VALIDITY OF RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES CANDIDATES AND GOVERNMENT NOMINEES - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - REQUIREMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 33(1)(A) AND (B) - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 34 - SCOPE OF ADMISSION FOR CANDIDATES FALLING IN THE GENERAL CATEGORY - REGION WISE ADMISSION - JUSTIFICATION FOR LIMITING THE SCOPE OF ADMISSION AT A PARTICULAR CENTRE TO THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE BONA FIDE RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICTS CONNECTED WITH THAT CENTRE - PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY - GEOGRAPHICAL CRITERION - CONVENIENCE OF THE CANDIDATES JOINING THE COURSE AT A PARTICULAR CENTRE - VALIDITY OF RESERVATION FOR GOVERNMENT NOMINEES - ABSENCE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - BASIS FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES - MERIT OF CANDIDATES - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the selection of candidates for admission to the General Nursing Course (GNC) in the State of Rajasthan, alleging that the reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, and Government nominees violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, as there were no rules and regulations to that effect.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the Rules and Regulations (Annex. R11) for admission in GNC, which provided for reservation of seats for SC, ST candidates, and Government nominees, were not in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors and Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives Registration Act, 1964 (the Act) and were ineffective for admission to the course. 2. The court found that the region-wise admission of candidates to the eleven centers was justified based on geographical criteria and the convenience of candidates joining the course at a particular center. 3. The court held that the reservation of seats for Government nominees was unconstitutional and void as there were no rules and regulations providing for such reservation, and the selection of candidates was not based on any merit or criteria. 4. The court found that the reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates was also unconstitutional and void as there were no rules and regulations providing for such reservation, and the selection of candidates was not based on any merit or criteria.
Issues: 1. Whether the reservation of seats for SC, ST candidates, and Government nominees for admission to the GNC violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the Rules and Regulations (Annex. R11) for admission in GNC were valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Whether the region-wise admission of candidates to the eleven centers was justified. 4. Whether the reservation of seats for Government nominees was constitutional and valid. 5. Whether the reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates was constitutional and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the reservation of seats for SC, ST candidates, and Government nominees violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as it was not based on any rules and regulations framed under the Act. 2. The court interpreted Section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and held that the State Government's power to make rules and regulations was limited to the purpose enumerated in those provisions. 3. The court held that Section 34 of the Act, which required the rules and regulations to be laid before the State Legislature, was mandatory and non-compliance with it invalidated the rules and regulations. 4. The court held that the region-wise admission of candidates to the eleven centers was justified based on geographical criteria and the convenience of candidates joining the course at a particular center. 5. The court held that the reservation of seats for Government nominees was unconstitutional and void as there were no rules and regulations providing for such reservation, and the selection of candidates was not based on any merit or criteria. 6. The court held that the reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates was also unconstitutional and void as there were no rules and regulations providing for such reservation, and the selection of candidates was not based on any merit or criteria.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the selection of candidates for admission to the GNC based on the reservation of seats for SC, ST candidates, and Government nominees, and directed the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners on merit without any reservation of seats.
2. Notices at the admission stage were issued to the respondents. Mr. L. S. Udawat, Additional Government Advocate appeared on their behalf at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the urgency of the matter, the writ petitions have been heard for final disposal at the admission stage. As the points involved in all the writ petitions are common, I propose to dispose them of by one common order.
3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the petitions are as under:-Non-petitioner 1 vide advertisement pub-iished in the month of October 1986 invited applications for admission to the course for the eleven centres in the State for imparting training. The admission for a particular training Centre was to be given to the candidates who were bona fide residents of the Districts for which the particular Centre was meant for. The Centre at Barmer was meant for the residents of Barmer and Jaisaimer Districts. The petitioners being residents of that area applied for admission at Barmer Centre. According to the Scheme of the admission, 16% seats were reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidates, 12% for Scheduled Tribes candidates and 10% for the Government nominees. The total number of seats for Barmer Centre was 60. There were 481 applications in all. While making selection from amongst the candidates who had applied, forty candidates were selected in the general cadre, nine in the Scheduled Caste cadre, two in the Scheduled Tribes cadre and six candidates were given admission as Government nominees.
4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by their not being admitted to the Course have challenged the legality and validity of the selection of the candidates and have prayed for direction to the respondents to consider the applications on merits instead of reservation of seats for certain categories of candidates despite there being no rules and regulations to that effect.
5. Thelearned Counsel for the petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the selection of candidates to the Course on a number of grounds. It has been strenuously contended that district wise allocation of seats limited the scope of admission for a candidate because meritorious candidates residing in a particular district could not get admission there because of the higher percentage of the candidates applying there whereas at other Centres persons securing lower percentage than the petitioners’ could get the chance because the percentage of the candidates applying there was lower.
6. It hasbeen stressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the academic qualification for eligibility was the same, there was no justification for asking the candidates for filing the applications only at the Centre meant for the district they belonged to.
7. The next ground of attack is that there are neither rules and regulations framed under the Act providing for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, nor is there any provision for Government nominees. The grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Government nominees have secured lower percentage than most of the petitioners still they got the chance of admission to the course which has been denied to the petitioners despite they being more meritorious.
8. Assailing the admission of the Government nominees, it has been vehemently stressed that they have very poor
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
