Basdev Sharma And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

it is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordship's may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to issue an

appropriate writ, order or directions whereby the action of the respondents in making affidavit that no person having lesser percentage of marks has

been given the appointment whereas have given the appointment to the respondent No.4 to 6 having lesser percentage of marks than the petitioners be

declared arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and also be pleased to direct the respondents to give the petitioners appointment on the post of Junior

Ayurgved Nurse/Compounder with all consequential benefits in the larger interest of justice.

In pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.05.1996 passed by the respondents, the petitioners applied for the post of Junior Ayurvedic Compounder.

Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioner No.5 (Akhlesh Kumar Sharma) filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1721/2020 which was decided by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.03.2001 which reads as under:-

Since, similar question of law and fact arise in these petitions, all are being disposed of by this common order.;

In pursuance of an advertisement issued, petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Junior Ayurvedic Nurse/Compounder. While preparing the

merit list government relied on the circular issued on 16.11.1989 which provides that for giving appointment senior batch persons be given bonus

marks. The circular was subject matter of challenge in Mahesh Chand Sharma & others V. State of Rajasthan & others, 1999 (2) RLR 755, wherein

it was held that merit list has to be prepared only as per the provisions of R. 22 of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy

Subordinate Service Rule, 1966, and appointment can be made only on the basis of merit list so prepared. In absence of any specific provisi9on under

the Rules no preference can be given to the candidates on the basis of their higher merit in the list prepared in earlier year batch, and /or no

preference can be given on the basis of year of completion of the training course. The petitioners have to complete with eligible persons in every

selection and can be given appointment only as per merit in each selection and can be given appointment only as per merit in each selection. In Jagdish

Prasad Sharma & others V. The State of Rajasthan & others, (DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 837/1999) decided on 11.10.2000, Division Bench of

this court reiterated the same view after consideration of judgements of the apex court. Thus, preparation of merit list giving batch wise preference is

contrary to provisions in the Rules of 1966 and decision rendered by this court. Accordingly the petitions are allowed. Respondent no. 1 is directed to

prepare the merit list with you giving batchwise preference and appointments be made of the petitioners, if found suitable, on the post of Junior

Ayurvedic Nurse/ Compounder as per the merit prepared afresh only, within three month from order.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge similarly situated person Rajendra Singh filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition

No.86/2003 for non-compliance of the order dated 12.03.2001 which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated

04.11.2004 which reads as under:-

After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the judgments cited at bar, more particular, the

judgment of this court in the case of Mahesh Chand Sharma and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 1999(2) RLR 755, which has been upheld

upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Having considered entire facts and circumstances in view of detailed reply filed on behalf of the respondents, in my opinion, no case for contempt is

made out.

The contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.

Being aggrieved by dismissal of the contempt petition the petitioners filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).4288- 4295/2005 which was dismissed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.02.2008 which reads as under:-

No orders on applications for impleadment and transposing respondents as petitioners. Heard.

The special leave petitions are dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the official respondents have given appointment to private respondents No.4 to 6 vide order dated

19.07.2018. Counsel further submits that the private respondents No.4 to 6 are lower in merit and prayed that the petitioners be also given appointment

on the post of Junior Ayurvedic Compounder.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the

advertisement in question relates to the year 1996 and the petitioners have lost their legal battle up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court; secondly, the

respondents No.4 to 6 have been given appointment by the official respondents in pursuance to the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the Additional

District Judge No.1, Bharatpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.22/2017 (CIS No.45/2015); thirdly, the advertisement in question relates to the year 1996

and after a delay of 24 years, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

unsettle the settled position with regard to appointment on the post of Junior Ayurvedic Compounder in the department.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.