Anil Kumar vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajendra Saxena, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to grant admission in his favour to the General Nursing Course at Barmer Centre for the Session 1985-86 conducted in pursuance to notification Annexure 2.

The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination, 1985 from the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan vide mark-sheet Annexure-1 and secured 196 marks out of 400 i.e. 49% marks. Vacancies for granting admission to the General Nursing Course all over Rajasthan Were advertised by respondent No. 1 in October, 1985 vide notification Annexure-2. In the said notification, it was mentioned that admissions will be given only to the person, who are residents of respective districts where the training centres are located. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a bona fide resident of Barmer District. He applied for the admission in the said course. The respondent No. 2 after considering all the applications issued two lists of the selected candidates on 26.10.1986. One containing a list of 50 candidates marked Annexure 3 and Anr. list Annexure-4 containing the reserve list consisting of 15 persons. Out of the reserve list Annexure-4, candidates whose names appear from serial No. 1 to 7 were granted admission vide orders dated 18.11.1985 and 30.11.1985 Annexure 5 & 6 respectively. The State Government through the Director, Medical & Health Department vide its letter dated 25th Nov.,1985 Annexure-7 also nominated 55 candidates to various training centres situated in different districts including the Barmer Training Centre. It is the case of the petitioner that as may as 5 nominated candidates, who have secured lesser percentage of marks than him, have also been given admission. For this the petitioner has filed the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary Examination, 1985 Annexure-8 of one Baldev Singh, who was nominated by the State Government. The petitioner has also alleged that candidates, who are not residents of Barmer and Jaisalmer districts, but who are residents of other districts, have also been granted admission to the said course. For this he has filed certificates of bona-fide residence Annexures 9 to 12 of Ramesh Chandra, Shashi Kan, Om prakash Charan ad Rajendra Singh, who belong to other districts but have been admitted in the said course in centres located at different districts. The petitioner has, therefore, contended that the respondents have subjected him to a hostile discrimination by not giving him admission in the Genera Nursing Course at Barmer Centre. Hence this writ petition.

This Court by its ad interim order dated 9.1.1986 directed the respondents to give provisional admission to the petitioner in the General Nursing Course at Barmer. This is an admitted position that the petitioner has already under gone the said course and passed out the same and has also been appointed in service by the Government of Rajasthan.

The respondents in their reply dated 14.12.87 have admitted that the petitioner had applied for the said Course, but averred that subsequent selections were made from the waiting list and not from the reserve list, that most of the candidates, who have been nominated by the Government, have secured more marks than the petitioner, that the last admission given from the general quota of the candidates was to the candidate, who had secured 201 marks out of 400 marks, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for admission and that there was no question of any discrimination. The respondents have thus impliedly admitted that candidates, nominated by the State Govt. but who have secured less than 196 marks, have also been given admission, and alleged that they were nominated by the State Government.

I have heard the learned course for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

Shri Charan has submitted that this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitioner No. 249 of 1985 (Chandra Singh v. State) decided on 25.1.1993. In that case, the Hon''ble Chief Justice has observed as under:

Being satisfied that this is a fit case for deciding the writ petition in terms of the stay order, I incorporate the same in the final judgment and dispose of the writ petition.

The learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute this factual position.

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment as well as keeping in view the admitted fact that petitioner has already under gone the General Nursing Course for the Session 1985-86 and passed out the same long back, I accordingly dispose of this petition. No order as to costs.