Tanishka Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Application for deleting respondent No. 5 from the array of respondents is allowed. The respondent No. 5 is deleted from array of respondents at the

risk and peril of petitioner.

Application for taking registration certificate on record is allowed subject to just objections.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issue stands already covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Lalit Kishore Vs. State &

ors. (S.B. CWP No. 8908/2020), decided on 23.10.2020 alongwith other connected matters and the issue No. H and directions therein would apply to

the present case.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said aspect.

In Lalit Kishore Vs. State & ors. (Supra), this Court held as under on issue No. H:- ISSUE NO.H - Candidates who are registered with the Rajasthan

Para Medical Council after 30.07.2020 have been held ineligible on account of the order issued on 21.09.2020.

12.1 In K. Manjusree Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512, the Supreme Court held that the rule of game cannot

be changed. In K. Manjusree (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:

But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum

marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In

regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated

above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of

the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination

and not for the interviews.

Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and

interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified

in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of IndiaMANU/SC/

0395/1983 : (1984)ILLJ314SC , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of IndiaMANU/SC/0050/1985 : AIR1985SC1351 , and Durgacharan Misra v. State

of Orissa.

12.2 The aforesaid view was reiterated in Hemani Malhotra Versus High Court of Delhi, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 by the Supreme Court holding

as under:

There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written

examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority

concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate

should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at

vive-voce, test was illegal.

12.3 Keeping in view the settled law, the condition laid down in the notifications dated 21.09.2020 and 01.09.2020 is held to be illegal and unjustified

and all the candidates who possess the registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council upto the last date of document verification i.e. 14.10.2020

shall be treated as eligible for consideration for appointment and if they have been denied consideration on the ground that they did not possess

registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council upto 30.07.2020 shall be treated as eligible and shall be considered for appointment as per their

merit. The writ petitions in this regard stand allowed.

12.4 The question, however, remains as to whether candidates, who have been directed to be registered by this Court, can be said to be eligible to

participate in the selection process and should be given a chance to get their document verification done after the Rajasthan Para Medical Council

registers them. So far as the State Government is concerned, it has been argued on their behalf that as the last date for document verification was

fixed upto 14.10.2020 and in the notification dated 21.09.2020, it was mentioned that the registration must be done before 30.07.2020, therefore, even

if, the Rajasthan Para Medical Council registers the candidates now, they are to be treated as ousted from participation in the selection process. The

grievance with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council is to be treated separately than the eligibility for the posts under advertisement dated 12.06.2020.

12.5 Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand have pointed out that under the advertisement, it was provided that the document regarding

registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council shall be examined at the stage of document verification of a candidate. It has also come on

record that the last date for document verification was changed by the State and earlier the last date fixed was 30.09.2020 vide notification dated

01.09.2020. Later on, another notification was issued on 21.09.2020 increasing the date of document verification upto 14.10.2020.

12.6 The question arises whether 14.10.2020 should be treated as the final date for document verification or the candidates who have now been

directed to be registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council be allowed to submit their document for the purpose of selection after 14.10.2020.

12.7 In the opinion of this Court, the State itself has not fixed a particulate date of document verification. It has been extended twice vide notifications

dated 01.09.2020 and 21.09.2020. The court also notices that several sets of candidates were called on different dates for document verification.

Hence, date of document verification is a flexible date depending on each individual candidate, who has been called on a particular date. Thus, in view

of this Court, date of 14.10.2020 cannot be treated as sacrosanct. 12.8 In SB Civil Writ Petition No.11502/2020, this court had taken earlier a view

without examining the aforesaid aspect and treated the date of 14.10.2020 as sacrosanct and dismissed the petition. However, the said order has been

recalled suo motu on 22.10.2020. This court finds that the petitioner therein has already been registered with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council on

14.10.2020, but she was called on 10.10.2020 resulting in her being ousted from the selection process. As this court has now reached to the conclusion

that the date of 14.10.2020 i.e. last date of document verification for particular set of candidates cannot be treated as sacrosanct, the petitioner would

be entitled for consideration. SB Civil Writ Petition No.11502/2020 stands allowed.

12.9 Keeping in view the controversy which this Court has decided in the foregoing Issue Nos.E, G and H, it is apparent that the petitioners therein

possess the requisite qualification having passed Diploma from University duly recognized with the UGC and recognized by the State Government, but

their registration was not done by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. As this Court had already directed the Rajasthan Para Medical Council to

register the candidates within a period of 15 days henceforth, the natural corollary is that such candidates must be allowed to submit those registration

before the appointing authority for the purpose of consideration of their candidature for appointment as per their merit on the posts of Lab Technician

and Assistant Radiographer.

12.10 The State Authorities are, therefore, directed to conduct a fresh document verification after a period of three weeks henceforth i.e. from

18.11.2020 onwards and all the candidates who possess the registration on or upto 18.11.2020 shall be considered for the purpose of appointment as

per their merit. Even such candidates who are able to receive NOC from other Universities and get themselves registered with the Rajasthan Para

Medical Council shall also be considered for the purpose of appointment. Accordingly, the writ petitions of such candidates are allowed.

The aforesaid directions shall apply to the petitioner also.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.