Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ application, the petitioners, who acquired two years diploma Course in Laboratory Technician from Santokaba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'SDMH', Jaipur for short), successfully participated in the recruitment process conducted in pursuance to advertisement dated 6th October, 2009, but their names have been excluded from the select list dated 20th December, 2011; holding them ineligible, and therefore, the instant writ proceedings have been instituted praying for the following relief(s). "1. By an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned Select List Dated 20.12.2011 may be quashed Reviewed and appointment letters issued pursuant to Select List dated 20.12.2011 may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to redraw the Select List while including the name of the petitioners in Select List. 2. By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed to treat the qualifications acquired by the petitioners to be valid and recognized for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician and for all other purposes. 3. That any other appropriate order or directions which the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may be passed."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioners acquired the qualifications of two years diploma course in Laboratory Technician from SDMH, Jaipur. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that the State -respondents have prepared the impugned Select List dated 20th December, 2011, by misreading the amended rule of Rajasthan Medical and Health Sub -ordinate Service Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1965', for short), with reference to Schedule -1. The qualifications, which were prescribed under the Rules of 1965 contemplated 9 months Diploma in Laboratory Technology Course from the institutions recognized by the Government and the candidate must have knowledge of Hindi/Devnagri Lipi. The assessment of merit was to be based on 50% of academic record and 50% of average marks secured in Laboratory Technician Training Course.
(3.) A dispute raised by two sets of incumbents (i) who were possessing nine months Training Course from the institution recognized by the Government and (ii) who were in possession of two years diploma course from the institutions recognized by the Government became subject matter of batch of writ applications before a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court lead case being SBCWP No. 14873/2010 (7501/2010) (Kailash C. Sharma Vs. State and Ors.) decided on 28th March, 2011 holding that no distinction could be drawn between the two categories i.e. one possessing nine months certificate or those who were in possession of two years Diploma in Laboratory Technician Training Course from the institutions recognized by the Government. Direction was issued to the respondents to re -draw the select -merit list afresh wherein the very same advertisement dated 6th October, 2009 was involved. While the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was made subject matter of intra -court appeal in DBSAW No. 802/2011, the Division Bench, referring to the amendment to the Rules of 1976 as contained in Schedule -1 appended to the rules, made it explicit that the incumbents with two years Diploma of Laboratory Technician, obviously with longer duration than nine months, could not be excluded. The Division Bench also recorded the statement of the Additional Advocate General, made to the effect that no candidate, who obtained the Diploma Certificate from institutions, which are not recognized by the State Government, would be accorded appointment. The petitioners, who participated in the recruitment process in response to advertisement dated 6th October, 2009, have been excluded by the State -respondents while drawing the list of selected candidates possibly for not possessing the required qualification from an institute recognized by the Government, as would be reflected from the counter affidavit of the State -respondents.;