1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

JODHPUR

: O R D E R :

: O R D E R :

Sajid Khan Moyal

Sajid Khan Moyal

Vs.

Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

((S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3366/2013)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3366/2013)

Date of order : : 09.04.2014

Date of order : : 09.04.2014

P R E S E N T

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy, for the petitioner.

Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy, for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikash Choudhary assisted to Mr.S.S.Ladhrecha, AAG., for the

Mr.Vikash Choudhary assisted to Mr.S.S.Ladhrecha, AAG., for the

respondent.

respondent.

BY THE COURT:-

BY THE COURT:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition, petitioner is claiming right of

In this writ petition, petitioner is claiming right of

consideration on the post of Lab Technician on following grounds.

consideration on the post of Lab Technician on following grounds.

(A) So many other candidates possessing Diploma in

(A) So many other candidates possessing Diploma in

Medical Laboratory & Technology from Para Medical Council of

Medical Laboratory & Technology from Para Medical Council of

India Karnal (Haryana) have been provided appointment but

India Karnal (Haryana) have been provided appointment but

respondent deny appointment to the petitioner.

respondent deny appointment to the petitioner.

(b) Petitioner is working from last 3 years as Lab

(b) Petitioner is working from last 3 years as Lab

Technician, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by

Technician, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi

State Minerals Development Corporation reported in 1990(1)

State Minerals Development Corporation reported in 1990(1)

SCC 361. Petitioner is entitled to be treated qualified for the

SCC 361. Petitioner is entitled to be treated qualified for the

post in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

post in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

rendered in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 649/1999 (Rajendra

rendered in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 649/1999 (Rajendra

Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2

(c) The employee working on the post of ward boy and lab

(c) The employee working on the post of ward boy and lab

boy are entitled for appointments by way of promotion on the

boy are entitled for appointments by way of promotion on the

post of Lab Technician according to rules after completion of 5

post of Lab Technician according to rules after completion of 5

years of service without such qualification, therefore, petitioner

years of service without such qualification, therefore, petitioner

is entitled for appointment.

is entitled for appointment.

With regard to first ground raised by the petitioner, it is

With regard to first ground raised by the petitioner, it is

admitted position of fact that the qualification which petitioner is

admitted position of fact that the qualification which petitioner is

possessing is not provided for the post of Lab Technician

possessing is not provided for the post of Lab Technician

therefore, this Court cannot direct respondents to commit

therefore, this Court cannot direct respondents to commit

illegality again, if any candidate has been provided appointment

illegality again, if any candidate has been provided appointment

contrary to the rules, therefore, first contention of petitioner is

contrary to the rules, therefore, first contention of petitioner is

hereby rejected.

hereby rejected.

With regard to the claim of petitioner to treat him qualified

With regard to the cl