Nandlal Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

J/i-The Respondent Commission may be restrained from making selection of any candidates who does not have 5 years experience In the speciality of Pediatrics (as distinguished from 5 years service as C.A.S.). If for giving the aforesaid relief it is considered necessary, the requirement of 5 years experience in the speciality as laid down in the Rules and has been referred to herein above may be declared to be invalid and may be struck down.

J/ii-Alternatively, without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the Respondent be directed to press into service General Note I and call the candidates to the extent of time as the petitioner for the interview and recommend those found suitable.

J/iii-if for any reason the appointments to the post of Junior Specialists are made without considering the case of the petitioner, such appointments may be declared to be invalid and the orders made to this effect may be struck down.

J/iv-All benefits consequent to above relief may be directed to be given to the petitioner.

J/v-Any other directions, orders appropriate to the circumstances of the case may kindly; be issued in favour of the petitioner.

J/vi-Cost of this writ be awarded.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition may be summarised thus. On December 31, 1982, the petitioner was appointed as C.A.S. He did M.D. in Pediatrics. He was posted as C.A.S. in the Government Hospital, Balotra vide order dated December 15, 1983 (Annexure 2). By order dated July 16, 1984 (Annexure 1), a post of C.A.S. (Pediatrics) was created in the Government Hospital, Balotra. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter to be called 'the Commission') issued advertisement No. 2/87-88 inviting applications for 21 posts of Junior Specialists (Pediatrics). Only 25 candidates were called for interview. The petitioner was not called. He submitted a representation (Annexure 3) to the Chairman of the Commission by with no avail.-Thereafter, this writ petition was filed along with a stay application. In pursuance of the order dated November 2, 1989 passed on the stay application, the petitioner appeared before the Commission and he was interviewed.

3. In reply to the show cause notice, the Commission admits that the said advertisement No. 2/87-88 was issued for 21 post of Junior Specialists in Pediatrics, 25 candidates were called for interview, the petitioner applied for it and he was not called for interview as he did not fulfil the eligibility condition of five years' experience in the speciality concerned after post-graduation.

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the general Note No. 1 given in the end of the Schedule of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules') clearly provides that the Public Service Commission may relax the prescribed number of years of experience in case candidates with required experience are not available and it was also so mentioned in the advertisement No. 2/87-88, the Commission should have relaxed the eligibility condition of the candidates particularly when on the previous occasion there were four posts only. This fact is admitted by the Commission in its reply. He further contended that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated November 2, 1989, the petitioner had been interviewed.

5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner was not called for interview by the Commission as he was not having minimum required experience of five years and relaxation was not given this time.

6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was not having minimum experience of five years as required under Item No. 6 of the Schedule of the Rules, he was having experience of more than 4years, General Note No. 1 given in the schedule of the Rules and also said advertisement No. 2/87-88 provided of years of experience in case the candidates with required experience are not available, the Commission did not relax this eligibility condition in the present case and it was relaxed on the previous occasion. In pursuance of the earlier advertisement No. 2/84-85, four posts were advertised and 44 applications were received in response thereof. The present advertisement No. 2/87-88 was for 21 posts and 25 candidates only were found possessing the required eligibility condition of five years' experience. The number of posts presently advertised was thus more than five times the previous posts. On the earlier occasion, five years' experience was relaxed to 3 years experience, out of 44 candidates, 31 candidates were found possessing experience of more than 3 years, they were called for interview and four candidates were selected. In the present case, 25 candidates were only called for interview to fill up 21 posts. No reason has been given in the reply to the show cause notice as to why the same relaxation was not given in the present case. This time, relaxation was all the more necessary when the number of posts was more than five times i.e. 21 posts against previous 4 posts. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the decision for not relaxing the five years' experience was taken by the then Chairman and subsequently it was not considered proper to change the said decision. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the exercise of the discretion was just and necessary. Its non-exercise was unreasonable. It has gone to hit the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. It has been observed in Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Ors. , as follows:

As a result of our finding a few more candidates would also be entitled to be included in the Select List and ordinarily we would have directed their inclusion in the list. But having regard to the fact that most of the others have not chosen to question the selection and the circumstance that two years have elapsed we do not propose to make any such general order as that would completely upset the subsequent selection and create confusion and multiplicity of problems. The cases of any other candidate who may have already filed a writ petition in this Court or the High Court will be disposed of in the light of this judgment. Those who have not so far chosen to question the selection will not be allowed to do so in the future because of their laches.

In the present case, the interview of the eligible candidates had taken place in the year 1989, as by order dated November 18, 1987 they remained stayed till then. In view of the above quoted authoritative observations, general direction cannot be given. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not pressed the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition. He has sought the relief of the inclusion of the petitioner's name by the Commission in the list of successful candidates as per his merit only.

8. The writ petition is partly allowed. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 2) will include the name of the petitioner in the list of successful candidates for posts of Junior Specialists (Pediatrics) as per his merit, if he has been successful in the interview held in pursuance of the order dated November 2, 1989 and will send the amended list to the State of Rajasthan (Respondent No. 1) who will pass necessary order within two months thereof.