1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3659/2016

Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan & anr

2.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3779/2016

Dr Sangeeta Choudahry versus State of Rajasthan & anr

3.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4561/2016

Lekhraj Narwal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

4.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3806/2016

Manish Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

5.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3807/2016

Shailendra Gupta & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

6.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4209/2016

Sunil Kumar Verma versus State of Rajasthan & anr

7.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4239/2016

Dr Rinkulal Gupta versus State of Rajasthan & anr

25.7.2016

MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

Mr Vinod Jhajharia – for petitioner/s

Mr SN Kumawat – for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Mr Arpit Srivastava, Dy GC – for the State

BY THE COURT:

By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order

passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the

Commission') declaring the petitioners to be ineligible for the post of

Veterinary Officer.

(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 09:44:14 PM)

 2

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that an

advertisement for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer was

issued on 8.3.2011. The last date for submission of application form

was 8.4.2011. The petitioners applied for the post as they had joined

final year of the required course on 25.3.2011. The petitioners were

called for screening test and declared successful. The petitioners were

not called for interview, rather, their candidate itself was rejected vide

the impugned order. The petitioners have been held ineligible on the

ground that they did not appear in the final year examination upto last

date of submission of application forms i.e. 8.4.2011. As per rules,

one is eligible to apply for the post and appear in the selection if has

appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the required

course. The petitioners had taken the admission in the final year of

the required course before last date of submission of application

forms thus were eligible for the post hence, impugned order holding

petitioners to be ineligible may be quashed and set aside.

Mr SN Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the

Commission has contested the writ petitions apart from learned Dy

Government Counsel. It is submitted that petitioners were not eligible

for selection for the post of Veterinary Officer. The application was

permitted by those candidates who had appeared or appearing in the

(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 09:44:14 PM)

 3

final year of the required course. On the date of submission of the

application form by the petitioners, they neither appeared nor were

appearing in the final year examination. The result of Fourth Year

examination was declared in the month on 17.5.2011 which was

subsequent to the last date for submission of application form. In

view of above, petitioners cannot be said to be the candidates who

had appeared or were appearing in the final year examination of the

required course thus they have been declared ineligible for the post

concerned.

I have considered rival submissions of the parties and

perused the record.

The Commission had issued an advertisement on

8.3.2011 for the post of Veterinary Officer. The last date for

submission of application forms was 8.4.2011. The requisite

qualifications have been given in the advertisement. The Note

appended below the requisite educational qualifications permitted

those candidates to fill the form who are appearing or appeared in the

final year examination of the required course. It would be relevant to

refer the rules so as to have more clarity on the issue. The amended

rule reads as under -

“2.Amendment – In the existing rule as

mentioned in Column Number 32 against

(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 09:44:14 PM)

 4

each of the Service Rules as mentioned in

Column No.2 of the Schedule appended
therewith, the following proviso shall be
added, namely:

“Provided that the persons who has

appeared or is appearing in the final year
examination of the course which is the
requisite educational qualification for the
post as mentioned in the rules or schedule
for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to
apply for the post but he/she shall have to
submit proof of having acquired the
requisite educational qualification to the
appropriate selection agency:-

(i) before appearing in the main

examination, where selection is made
through two stages of written examination
and interview;

(ii) before appearing in interview

where selection is made through written
examination and interview;

(iii) before appearing in the written

examination or interview where selection is
made through only written examination or
only interview, as the case may be.”

The proviso to rule makes a candidate eligible to apply

for the post if he has appeared or is appearing in the final year

examination of the course required for the post.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners

took admission in the final year of the required course on 25.3.2011,

whereas, according to learned counsel for the Commission, result of

the Fourth Year examination was declared on 17.5.2011. If it is

(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 09:44:14 PM)

 5

presumed that petitioners had taken admission in final year of the

course on 25.3.2011 itself then also question would be as to whether

they can be considered to be candidates who were appearing or had

appeared in the final year examination of the required course. The

appearance in the final year examination cannot be without

declaration of the result of Fourth year. The last date for submission

of the application forms was 8.4.2011 and the result of the Fourth

year examination was declared on 17.5.2011 i.e. subsequent to the

last date of submission of application forms.

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

examination of last year was conducted some where in the month of

January, 2012 followed by declaration of result. The appearance in

the final year examination is much subsequent to the last date for

submission of the application form. In view of above, petitioners

cannot be governed by the amended rules.

The rule aforesaid was amended by the Legislature to

avoid hardship of those who have already appeared or appearing in

the final year examination but due to delay in declaration of the

result, remains ineligible though the selection test or interview is

conducted after gap of some time. If the object aforesaid is taken into

consideration, it protects those who have either appeared or appearing

(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 09:44:14 PM)

 6

in the final year examination but not for those who would be

appearing in the final year examination after gap of time, as is the

present case.

In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find that action of

the respondents to hold petitioners to be ineligible can be said to be

illegal. I do not find any force in the writ petitions. Hence, all the writ

petitions are dismissed.

A copy of this order be supplied in each connected file.

(MN BHANDARI), J.

bnsharma

All corrections made in judgment/ order have been

incorporated in judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma)
Deputy Registrar

(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 09:44:14 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)