MITAL, CJ. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner prays that the word 'regular' occurring in Ordinance 278 (e) and 278 (g) may be declared ultra vires. It has been prayed that the non-petitioners may be directed to give admission to the petitioner in P. G. course.
(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated that vide order dt. 8. 2. 1986 (Anx. l), the petitioner was appointed on the post of C. A. S. for six months or till selected candidates by Rajasthan Public Service Commission are made available. THE petitioner was terminated from service on 31. 1. 1987 by the order dated 5. 5. 87 (Anx. 2) but since after the adjustment of the selected persons from R. P. S. C. there were vacancies he was again appointed on 1. 2. 1987 for one year on ad hoc basis. Ultimately, he was selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 10. 8. 1990. THE petitioner applied for taking admission in Pre-P. G. Entrance Examination and after passing the written examination, the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board on 6. 7. 1992. After scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner, his admission was rejected on the ground that he is not possessing the requisite qualification as per condition No. 2 of the Ordinance 278 (e) and 278 (g) of the University of Rajasthan. Dissatisfied with the rejection of admission, the petitioner has approached this court to get the word "regular" occurring in said Ordinance 278 (e) and 278 (g) struk down. The writ petition was admitted on 20th of July, 1992 and an interim order was passed as follows: - "meanwhile, the petitioner may be provisionally admitted to P. G. Course in General Medicine in Medical College if he has been found to be meritorious on the basis of his merit according to the interview dated 6th of July, 1992 ignoring the condition of eligibility laid down in III clause of Annexure 3 for appearing in P. G. entrance examination. " In pursuance of the notice, the respondents appeared and filed reply stating that in the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules,1963 there is a provision of temporary/ad-hoc & substantive appointments. The substantive appointments are made only on the recommendations of Public Service Commission and such substantive appointments are treated to be regular appointments, whereas others are only short term or ad-hoc or stop gap arrangements. It is also stated that in Dr. Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj. (S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 4152/91) filed at Jaipur Bench, the position has been clarified vide order dt. 23. 9. 1991 observing that all those candidates who had not completed 5 years service from the date of their appointments after their due admission in RPSC cannot be considered for admission P. G. Medical Courses. In special appeal filed by one Dr. S. M. Mittal. Division Bench has observed vide order dt. 9. 7. 1992 that that being so,it is not necessary for us to go into the various controversies arising for this special appeal and to find out as to whether the judgment of learned single Judge was right or wrong. The respondents have further stated that the admission of the petitioner has been rightly rejected since he has not completed 5 years of service after regular appointment. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The same Ordinance was challenged in other D. B. C. Writ Petition No. 1270/93 Dr. Anil Nayyar Vs. The University of Rajasthan and three more writ petitions, they were disposed of with the first writ petition on 24th of September, 1993 by the Division Bench of this court and the Ordinance - was upheld as a good law.
(3.) WE have been informed that the aforesaid Division Bench judgement was assailed before the Supreme Court by other similarly situated doctor but the SLP has been dismissed. However,learned counsel for the respondent has not shown the order of the Supreme Court to us. In view of the aforesaid decision of Dr. Anil Nayyar's case, the challenge to the vires is meaningless. We have gone through the Division Bench judgment and we agree with them that the Ordinance is not ultra vires and deserves to be upheld, once the ordinance is held to be valid,the advantage of teaching experience gained by the petitioner as ad-hoc appointee cannot be counted as experience of substantive appointee. Admittedly, the petitioner was substantively appointed only on 10. 8. 90, therefore, he was not eligible as per Ordinance. On behalf of the petitioner. it was argued that since the petitioner has already undergone part of the course and the course will be completed in December,1994,his admission should not be cancelled and he should be allowed to pass. We do not agree with him since the writ petition is dismissed. The admission was subject to the decision of the writ petition and if he had succeeded he would have been allowed to go on and once he has failed and was not eligible to be admitted, the admission has to be cancelled. The tendency of the courts in granting such admission has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in St. Johan's Teacher Training Institute (For women) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1) and this court also in a number of cases taken the same view. We may refer to decisions of this court wherein similar view has been expressed in Ashok Kumar Aseri Vs. University of Jodhpur (2) and Dinesh Vs. State (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 306/93) decided on 25. 8. 93. Thus, the petitioner has no case even on equitable grounds. ;