RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Rai - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9429/2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
Eligibility - ANM Recruitment - Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Rule, 1965 - The court emphasized the necessity of possessing the required qualifications, including registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council, by the last date of application, affirming strict adherence to eligibility criteria as stipulated in the advertisement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for an ANM position but was rejected due to lack of registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council by the application deadline, despite having applied for registration prior to that date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection was justified as the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement, which required registration by the last date of application.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for not having the required registration by the application deadline was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that eligibility must be determined as of the last date of application, and the specific requirement for registration was mandatory as per the advertisement.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against cancellation of her application for the post of ANM on urgent temporary basis pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.06.2021.
2. The advertisement dated 19.06.2021 (Annex.1) was issued by the respondents seeking applications for 250 posts of ANM on urgent temporary basis. The professional qualifications required as indicated in the advertisement were that the candidate must have passed ANM course, must be compulsorily registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council and was required to attach the bona fide resident certificate, caste certificate, marriage certificate and other documents.
3. The petitioner applied on 25.06.2021 and alongwith the application, attached fee receipt from the Rajasthan Nursing Council dated 14.06.2021, which pertains to her ANM registration fees.
4. When the provisional merit list dated 20.07.2021 (Annex.3) was issued, the application of the petitioner was rejected, inter-alia, indicating that though the petitioner found place in the provisional merit list, as she was not registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council, her application has been rejected.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner got registration from the Rajasthan Nursing Council on 13.08.2021. It is claimed that the document verification pursuant to the provisional merit list were held on 30.11.2021 and 01.12.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of petitioner's candidature by the respondents on account of lack of registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council is not justified, inasmuch as, before the last date of application, the petitioner had applied with the Rajasthan Nursing Council for registration.
7. Submissions were made that this Court in Manju v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13299/2017, decided on 08.12.2017, had directed consideration of candidature of the petitioners therein for the post of ANM under the National Health Mission, who had applied for registration before the last date of making application and who had certificates before the date of document verification and as such, the action of the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner is not justified.
8. Reliance has also been placed on judgment in Ashok Kumar Purohit v. State of Rajasthan: 2006 WLC (Raj) UC 154 and State of Rajasthan v. Anil Vishnoi & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal No.286/2021, decided on 02.12.2021.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the stipulation in the advertisement was very specific, wherein, the requirement of registration with Rajasthan Nursing Council was emphasized by indicating 'compulsory' (3iPic|i4) in the advertisement.
10. Further submissions have been made in terms of Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Rule, 1965 ('Rules of 1965') also, the eligibility has to been seen on the last date of application and, therefore, as admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite certificate on the date of application/last date of application, the petitioner is ineligible and, therefore, her application has been rightly rejected.
11. Reliance has been placed on judgment in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Zaiba & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.252/2019, decided on 24.04.2020.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
13. The advertisement dated 19.06.2021 (Annex.1) indicates the following eligibility requirements :-
14. Admittedly, the petitioner on the date of application was not in possession of requisite registration certificate with Rajasthan Nursing Council as she had applied on 14.06.2021 for registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council as is evident from the fee receipt produced by the petitioner.
15. The last date of filing of the application on which date the petitioner applied was 25.06.2021. Till that date also, the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite eligibility i.e.
Eligibility for public employment must be strictly adhered to as per the stipulated requirements in the advertisement, including necessary qualifications by the application deadline.
The requirement for registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council was deemed unnecessary prior to application submission; essential qualification assessed at verification suffices.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the advertisement, particularly the requirement of possessing the registration wi....
Once a candidate is allowed to participate in a selection process, they cannot be denied appointment on the basis of an expired registration, particularly under exceptional circumstances like a pande....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that substantial compliance with the requirements of the advertisement and qualification for the post should not be denied based on technicalities,....
Eligibility for appointment requires meeting criteria by the cut-off date; subsequent qualifications do not retroactively qualify candidates.
The court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with the requirements of the advertisement and the duty of the court to impart substantial justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.