Eligibility for appointment requires meeting criteria by the cut-off date; subsequent qualifications do not retroactively qualify candidates.

Order :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. Petitioner herein, an aspirant to become a Laboratory Technician, is before this Court seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him appointment on the said post pursuant to advertisement in question issued in June, 2020, with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner completed the three-year BMLT course, passing all three parts of the examination successfully. Afterward, the petitioner applied for and was appointed to the position of Lab Technician on a UTB basis at the Respondent Government Medical College, Pali, starting on 15.01.2018, and has continued in the role to this date. In June 2018, the petitioner applied for registration as a Para Medical Personnel with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council (RPMC). However, on 30.07.2018, the RPMC rejected the application, stating that the petitioner’s BMLT degree was from a university not authorized to offer paramedical courses, without providing an opportunity for hearing.

2.1. In June 2020, the respondent Board issued an advertisement for the position of Lab Technician. The petitioner, meeting all the educational qualifications, was eligible to apply, but due to the rejection by the RPMC, the petitioner was unable to submit the application. Despite filing representations, no action was taken by the authorities.

2.2. Following the petitioner's efforts, this Court passed an interim order on 02.07.2020, directing the inclusion of the petitioner in the selection process. As a result, the petitioner’s name was included, and the respondent Board declared the petitioner successful in the selection process on 21.08.2020.

2.3. The writ petition was finally allowed by this Court on 02.12.2020. The respondents did not challenge the judgment. In compliance with the judgment, the petitioner submitted a representation on 03.12.2020 for due consideration, but no action was taken by the authorities.

2.4. In February 2023, similarly situated individuals aggrieved by the interim order approached the Supreme Court, which directed the respondent State to conduct an exam before registration with the RPMC. As per the Supreme Court's judgment, the RPMC issued a public notice on 01.03.2023 and conducted a written examination on 23.04.2023. The petitioner participated and scored 111 marks out of 150, qualifying for registration.

2.5. Following the successful examination, the petitioner was declared eligible for registration again and issued a Registration Certificate by RPMC on 27.06.2023.

2.6. After receiving the Registration Certificate, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent Board on 24.07.2023, along with the necessary documents. Despite securing higher marks than the last cutoff, the petitioner has not been offered an appointment to date. Consequently, the petitioner is filing this writ petition for appropriate relief.

3. The exact factual position has been amply clarified in para No.19 of the reply filed by the respondents, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“19. That the averments contained in paragraph 19 of the writ petition require no comments so far as concerned to the notice dated 09.03.2021. A perusal of the notice dated 09.03.2021 would clearly reave that the petitioner was intimated to furnish few information alongwith documentary proofs so that the candidature of the petitioner could be considered. The petitioner was clearly directed to furnish registration certificate of RPMC, proof of application before RPMC for registration by 30.07.2020, fee receipt of application for registration at RPMC and copy of demand draft as RPMC registration fee within 7 days from the notice dated 09.03.2021. It is also important to note here that the petitioner failed to furnish required information and documents as required under notice dated 09.03.2021 but on the contrary the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.03.2021 with false averments. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner w