JUDGMENT
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. Petitioner by means of.this writ petition sought a mandamus against the respondents to permit her to join the training of female Health Workers which was to commence in March, 1990.
2. The Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) issued a notification dated 15.2.1990 (Annex. 1) inviting applications for selection of sixty multiple female Health Workers. It was mentioned in the said notification that the applicant must have passed the secondary examination and that in the selection, preference shall only be given to a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. Petitioner who had passed secondary school leaving certificate examination, also applied for the said course. Out of 60 seats advertised vide Annex. 1, 30% seats were reserved for the S.C/S.T. candidates. However, only four candidates belonging to S.C/S.T. applied and, therefore, all of them were selected for the said course. The parties are not at dispute that after considering all the applications, the respondents prepared a provisional list of 59 candidates including the S.C. and S.T. candidates. The respondents thereafter also published a list of 47 candidates who were bonafide residents of Rajasthan and also had acquired education qualifications in Rajasthan. Out of those 47 candidates, only 37 candidates were selected because the remaining candidates failed to furnish requisite documents for verification. It is also an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner’s name appeared at S. No. 52 in the provisional merit list. The respondents also prepared a separate list of those candidates who had submitted domicile certificates of Rajasthan but had acquired educational qualification from other States and in that list, petition’s name appeared at S. No. 27. Petitioner’s case is that out of 60 available seats, only 34 candidates were permitted to join the training while 26 seats were lying vacant and that the respondents did not permit her to join the training on the pretext that there were certain irregularities in the selection and some enquiry was going on. Petitioner’s case is that the respondents have failed to discharge their legal obligations and that similarly selected candidates have already been permitted to join their training while she has been denied to join the training and has been subjected to hostile discrimination.
3. The respondents in their counter have asserted that since the petitioner is not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and has acquired educational qualification from Kerala, the domicile Certificate Annex. 3 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Churu on the basis of the affidavit of Smt. Kamal Anna P.C. dt. 1.3.1990 Annex. 4 has apparently been obtained by manipulation and, therefore, petitioner cannot be treated as a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. It has been alleged that since the petitioner is not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan, she does not fulfil the minimum requirements and as such she is not entitled to be selected for the training course in question,
4. This Court by its ad interim order dated 13.9.1990 directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to provisionally join the training at her own risk if her name appeared in the merit list and she was otherwise qualified. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner was permitted to join the training. The ad interim order dt. 13.9.90 was confirmed on 26.4.1991. Thereafter, by this Court’s order dated 17.12.1991, petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination and it was ordered that the result shall be withheld subject to the decision of this writ petition. Again after hearing the parties, this Court by its order dated 4.8.92 directed the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner but the same has not been declared so far.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and perused the relevant record.
6. The only contention of Mr. Vyas is that the petitioner was not eligible for the female Health Workers Training because she was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. According to him as per Certificates Annex. R/1 and R/2, petitioner studied for the academic years 1983-84 to 1985-86 in the D.V.N.S.S. High School, Others (Kerala State) as a regular student ‘and thereafter passed the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination 1987 from the Board of Public Education, Kerala State. Therefore, the affidavit of Smt. Kamal Amma P.C. Annex. 4 to the effect that her sister Miss Presanna Kumari K.K., petitioner, was residing with her in Sardar Shahar Distt. Churu for last twelve years, was apparently false and hence the bonafide residence certificate dt. 6.3.90 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Churu was based on a wrong affidavit, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for selection for training of the course in question.
7. To my mind, this argument is not tenable. Firsts as per notification Annex.! issued by the respondent No. 2, it was clearly mentioned that the applicant should have passed the secondary examination and that in the selection, preference shall only be given to the applicants who are bonafide residents of Rajasthan. Therefore, the only minimum qualification required for the selection of the course in question was that the applicant should have passed by the secondary examination. It was now here notified that only those applicants who are bonafide residents of Rajasthan, shall be eligible for selection. On the other hand, it was specifically mentioned that in selection, preference shall only be given to the applicants, who are bonafide residents of Rajasthan Admittedly, petitioner has the minimum educational qualification. Even on the basis of the Certificates Annex. R/1 and R/2 submitted by her, if it is held that she had studied and acquired educational qualification in Kerala State and she is not bonafide resident of Rajasthan still then she is entitled to be selected for training in the multiple female Health Workers Course, because twenty four seats were vacant and no candidate who was bonafide resident of Rajasthan, was available. Had such a candidate from Rajasthan, was available then positively as per terms of Notification Annex. 1 preference would have been given to such candidate vis-a-vis a candidate who is not bonafide resident of Rajasthan. But such is not the case here. Petitioner was duly selected and her name appeared at S. No. 52. Only 36 candidates had joined and 24 seats were still available. In such circumstances, the respondents could not have denied admission to her either on the pretext that there were certain irregularities in the selection or on the basis that she was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. Therefore, if is abundantly apparent that the petitioner was subjected to a hostile discrimination offending the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. Moreover, petitioner was admitted in the training course in pursuance of this Court’s ad interim order dt. 13.2.90. She was also permitted to appear in the examination which was held in January 1992 and her result has not been declared till this date despite this Court’s order dt. 4.8.1992. Therefore, keeping in view all these facts also, this petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to declare petitioner’s result of the multiple female Health Workers Course Examination held in January 1992 within a week from today. No order as to costs.