Teena Verma vs Sarvepalli Radhakrishanan

Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order/letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent, whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as Probationer Trainee and it has been assumed that her service has not been regularised and consequently, she has been held in-eligible for grant of admission to MD/MS (Ayurveda) Course.

The petitioner was appointed as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak vide order dated 2.6.2009 (Annex. 5). The conditions of appointment inter-alia indicated as under:-

Whereafter the petitioner being interested in seeking admission in MD/MS (Ayurveda) course, sought certificate from her employer and the District Ayurved Officer, Udaipur vide its certificate dated 20.5.2014 (Annex. 6), indicated 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."

However, the petitioner has been held ineligible by indicating that as the order appointing petitioner as Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak indicates a period of two years as probation and therefore, she is not in regular employment and was not entitled for getting her services counted towards the said purpose. The indication reads as under:-

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner continuous to be in the service of the department and the period of probation having come to an end long back. The assumption on part of the respondents that the petitioner has not been regularised, is baseless in view of the certificate issued by the District Ayurved Officer and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be admitted in the course as an in-service candidate.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period spent on probation cannot be counted and/or that no material is available to indicate that post completion of the probation period the petitioner has been regularised in service.

I have considered the rival submissions.

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 Ayurved 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.

A bare look at the appointment order of the petitioner Annex.-5 (quoted above) dated 2.6.2009 clearly reveals that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak and it is further indicated that on completion of probation period successfully and on finding of behavior as satisfactory, the petitioner would be entitled to the pay-scale and the pension scheme would apply after the probation period was over. The order clearly indicates a regular employment of the petitioner and no exception can be taken to the said aspect.

As to whether the petitioner continuous on probation and/or has been regularised in service, a look at Annexure-6 dated 20.5.2014 issued by the District Ayurved Officer (quoted here-in-before) clearly indicates that the petitioner continuous to be Gramin Ayurved Chikitshak and was serving at Rajkiya Ayurvedic Ausdhalaya, Majhawada, Udaipur and a reference regarding her service book has been indicated.

The very fact that the petitioner continuous to be in employment for over 5 years with Ayurved department in pursuance of the appointment order dated 2.6.2009, the same necessarily means completion of two years of probation period in terms of the appointment order and it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in regular employment and continuous to be on probation.

In view of the above, the rejection of petitioner''s candidature vide Annex.-8 (supra) cannot be sustained and the same, therefore, deserves to be and is quashed and set-aside.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection of the petitioner''s candidature vide Annex.-8 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.-8.

No costs.