SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Raj) 307

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
Dr. V.S. Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 583 of 1983.
Decided On : 8-01-1985

A writ petition challenging the selection of a candidate by the Public Service Commission is premature if no order of appointment has been issued by the Government.

Headnote:

PRE-MATURE WRIT PETITION - RAJASTHAN MEDICAL SERVICE (COLLEGIATE BRANCH) RULES, 1962 - RULE 22 - SELECTION BY GOVERNMENT - NO RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT UNTIL ORDER PASSED BY GOVERNMENT - WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING SELECTION BY COMMISSION IS PRE-MATURE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Senior Demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry, challenged the selection of non-petitioner No. 3 for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Commission). The petitioner argued that the selection was not in accordance with the prescribed qualifications and that his reversion to the post of Senior Demonstrator would result from the appointment of non-petitioner No. 3.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition was premature as no order of appointment had been issued by the Government in favor of non-petitioner No. 3. The court noted that under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, the selection by the Commission did not confer any right to appointment on the candidate. The court further observed that the Government could decline to appoint a person selected by the Commission if, after inquiry, it found that the candidate was not suitable in all other respects.

Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition challenging the selection of non-petitioner No. 3 by the Commission was premature? 2. Whether the selection by the Commission conferred any right to appointment on the candidate?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kunda S. Kadam v. K.K. Soman, AIR 1980 SC 881, which held that a writ petition challenging the selection of a candidate by the Public Service Commission was premature if no order of appointment had been issued by the Government. 2. The court interpreted Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, and held that the selection by the Commission did not confer any right to appointment on the candidate. The Government had the discretion to appoint or not appoint the candidate based on its own inquiry.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as premature, holding that the petitioner could not maintain the writ petition until and unless an order of appointment was issued in favor of non-petitioner No. 3 by the Government.

JUDGMENT

1. - Petitioner Dr. V.S. Choudhary has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on February 25, 1983 praying that State of Rajasthan (non-petitioner No. 1) may be restrained from giving appointment to Amar Singh, Senior Demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry, R.N.T. Medical College Udaipur (non-petitioner No. 3) to the post of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry for accommodating him (non-petitioner No. 3). Certain other reliefs were also sought by the petitioner.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission'), Ajmer has been impleaded as non-petitioner No. 2.

3. The petitioner passed his Post-graduate degree of M.D. in Bio-Chemistry which he obtained from the Faculty of Medicine University of Rajasthan. He entered his services in the Government of Rajasthan as Senior Demonstrator of Physiology on 17-1-1974. That appointment was temporary and was given to him on being selected by the Central Selection Committee, At the time of his appointment, he had passed the M.B.B.S. Degree examination. The Postgraduate degree in M.D. for Bio-Chemistry was obtained by him in 1975. The post of Senior Demonstrator was advertised by the Commission and the petitioner applied therefore Vide order (Anx.) dated May 19, 1976, he was given regular appointment thereto. Subsequently, he was promoted on urgent temporary basis to the post of Lecturer in Bio Chemistry. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was holding this post. Two posts of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry were advertised by the Commission vide advertisement No. 3/82/83 dated July 14, 1982. The qualifications mentioned in the advertisement were as follows:

"Post-Graduate Degree in Biochemistry, M,D. Ph.D., BSc. M.Sc. or M.R. C.P. (with Bio-Chemistry as a Special subject) or equivalent qualification

Preference will be given to M.D. in Bio Chemistry (non-medical teachers in Bio-Chemistry should preferably have a Doctorate in the subject):

Two years experience as Demonstrator/Tutor in Bio-Chemistry in a Medical College. "Post-Graduate" qualification other than those awarded by the University of Rajasthan should be recognised by the Medical Council of India."
These qualifications are contained in Bulletin (Anx. 3) issued by the Commission. The petitioner applied for the post. Before the petitioner could be selected by the Commission, Dr. R.C. Gupta and Amar Singh (non-petitioner No. 3) were selected for the post. The list of selected candidates was placed on the notice Board by the Commission on February 16, 1983. The petitioner has stated that soon after the same is received by non-petitioner No. 1, it is likely to issue appointment order of non-petitioner No. 3 as Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry.. The appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 is likely to result in the reversion, he being the junior most. The petitioner has further stated that for the reasons mentioned in paras 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition, he (non-petitioner No. 3) should not have been selected by the Commission for being posted as Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry. That led to the filing of the writ petition for the principal relief mentioned here in above.

4. A show cause notice as to why the writ petition be not admitted, was issued on February 25,1983. On February 28, 1983, learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.

5. On behalf of the Commission (non-petitioner No. 2) a reply to show cause notice was filed on April 18, 1983 contesting the writ petition on various grounds.

6. It was stated that non-petitioner No. 3 is qualified and entitled to be appointed on the post of Lecturer on the basis of the selection made by the Commission to the post of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry and that the petitioner has no right to continue on the post as he has been rejected by the Commission. Non petition No. 3 filed the reply to the writ petition along with photostat copy of Certificate No. 33465 (Ex. R1) dated July 15, 1982 issued






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top