Bharti Yadav vs Sarvepalli Radhakrishanan

Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Registrar of the respondent-University, whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected with the finding that she is in-eligible as in-service candidate.

The petitioner was appointed as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak vide order dated 2.6.2009 and continued on the said post till 29.4.2012. Whereafter, as she was provided appointment as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, she resigned from the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak and joined w.e.f. 30.4.2012.

The requirement of in-service candidate for admission in MD/MS (Ayurveda) Course as indicated in prospectus for Post Graduate Entrance Test is as under:-

"The eligibility for the in-service candidates for admission to MD/MS course as indicated in prospectus for Post Graduate Entrance Test for admission (Annex. 4) is indicated as under:-

"b. Six Seats are sanctioned in each Subject cited above including one seat reserved for in-service candidates of State Govt. in each subject. The in-service candidate means the candidate must have at least three years regular service experience in the Ayurved department in Rajasthan State. The contractual employees Ayurved shall not be eligible for in service quota."

The respondents by their order dated 14.10.2014 rejected the candidature noticing as under:-

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement as per prospectus is for three years regular service experience in the Ayurved Department in Rajasthan State. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 2.6.2009 and she continued to serve as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak till 29.4.2012 and as the Ayurvedic Medical Officer from 30.4.2012 and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not serve regularly for three years and therefore , the rejection being arbitrary deserves to be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the petitioner has resigned from the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak, her appointment as Ayurved Medical Officer w.e.f. 30.4.2012 only could be considered and as she has not completed three years, she was rightly held ineligibile.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

A look at the eligibility condition reveals that a in-service candidate has been defined to mean the candidate must have at least three years'' regular service experience in the Ayurved department in Rajasthan State. It is further indicated that the contractual employees (Ayurveda) shall not be eligible for in service quota. Further the term regular has been indicated as employee selected by duly constituted Selection committee/Board/PSC and again it has been stipulated that the contractual employee shall not be eligible for in service quota.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak by order dated 2.6.2009 and she continued to discharge the duties till 29.4.2012, which is evident from Annexure-15 filed by the petitioner wherein the District Ayurved Officer, Udaipur has certified that the petitioner has worked as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak till 29.4.2012 and has Ayurved Medical Officer w.e.f. 30.4.2012.

Merely because, the petitioner on being offered appointment as Ayurved Medical Officer, resigned from the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak and there being no hiatus between her earlier posting and the new posting i.e. 29.4.2012 and 30.4.2012 respectively, it cannot be said that the period spent by her as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak cannot be taken into consideration for judging her eligibility for admission in MD/MS (Ayurveda) Course as in-service candidate.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 14.10.2014 (Annex. 14) passed by the respondent-University is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant admission to the petitioner as in-service candidate in MD/MS (Ayurveda) Course, if she is found otherwise fit and eligible except for the above ineligibility indicated by the respondents by Annex.-14.

No costs.