Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil Narware vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.9863/2021
Vishal Dubey & ors.
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors.
Writ Petition No.29042/2021
Kapil Narware
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors.
Dated: 14.01.2021
Mr.Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Ritwik Parashar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State.
Mr.Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.
Mr.Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners herein, who are challenging the oral order by which their selections on the post of ECG Technician were cancelled by the respondent No.5-Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College after having been selected. The impugned order is dated 01.06.2021 by which their candidature was rejected. Upon scrutiny of their documents they were found not to be in possession of the certificate for ECG Technician, which was mandatory for 2 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 consideration and therefore, on the recommendation of the scrutiny committee, their candidature was cancelled.
2. The advertisement for appointment for the post of ECG Technician is annexure-P/5 at page 64. The qualification that was mentioned therein is certificate of having undergone one year training for the post of ECG Technician from a recognized institute.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein all hold to their credit a two year diploma course in Cath Lab Technician and are also having working experience. They were even placed in the merit list and the examination was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. All these petitioners had initially had passed the said examination and thereafter, were appointed on the post of ECG Technicians, before their appointments were cancelled by the respondent No.5.
4. This petition has subsequently been amended and paragraph No.5.13 to 5.15 have been added to the petition. In paragraph No.5.13, the petitioner has stated that the Paramedical Council at Bhopal has issued the clarification letter dated 27.05.2021, which is Annexure- P/12 to the petition, whereby the said council has opined that those who have undergone the two year Diploma 3 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 course of Cath Lab Technician are taught and trained in the subjects essential for ECG Technician also. Further in 5.15, the petitioners have stated that the Dean, Medical College, Jabalpur, even after having received the said letter from the Paramedical Council, issued the impugned order.
5. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they, though having undergone the training for the Diploma course of Cath Lab Assistant, have also been trained to perform the functions of an ECG Technician. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to page No.55 of the petition where, in the list of practicals, it is included (1) ECG Recording pediatrics/Adult Patient, (2) Operations, Calibrations and servicing of ECG, (3) Recording of Holter/Stress ECG, (4) ECG Monitoring of Patients in ICCU, (5) Ambulatory B.P. Monitoring, (6) Operations of 2-D Echo/M.Mode Doppler and CFM system and its maintenance, (7) Operation of TEE and its maintenance, (8) Operation of blood oxymeter, ventilator and ABG Machine, (9) Operation of Tagarno and its maintenance, (10) ICCU Monitoring, (11) Control of film processing and developing and (12) Other practical in assisting in temporary Pace-Maker and Permanent Pace- Maker etc. 4 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021
6. From the above list of practicals that the petitioners have undergone in their training as Cath Lab Assistants, serial nos.1 to 4 relate to operation of the ECG Machine. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to page No.62 of the petition where also for the course of Diploma in Cath Lab Assistant in the list of practicals at serial No.1 to 4, practical training appears to be given for the operation of ECG machines.
7. In short, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the qualification of the petitioners, who are Diploma holders as Cath-Lab Technician is higher to that of an ECG certificate course, as those who had done the Diploma course of Cath-Lab Technicians have undergone a two year course while those who acquire a degree as ECG Technician, only undergo a one year course. Secondly, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that those who undergo a diploma training as Cath-Lab Technician, are also trained in the usage and application of ECG machines.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, (2015) 17 SCC 709. In the said 5 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 judgment, the petitioner had applied for the post of Range Officer Grade I (Forest). The qualification prescribed for the said post was that the candidate should possess a B.Sc. Degree with Forestry or its equivalent from any University recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The petitioner in that case had completed B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major subjects from Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in the year 2001. Thereafter, the said petitioner also completed M.Sc. (Forestry) from the same University in the year 2003 and thereafter passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Forestry from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in the year 2005-06. The petitioner was however denied the appointment, as he was found to be ineligible for he did not possess the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) or equivalent from any University recognized from the ICAR. His challenge to the impugned order was dismissed both by the Single Bench as also by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and held that the petitioner was eligible for the said post, as he had done B.Sc. Degree with Forestry as one of the 6 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 major subjects and has further obtained a Master's degree in Forestry, which was a higher qualification than B.Sc. (Forestry).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein has sought to apply the ratio laid down in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry's case (supra) to the facts, circumstances to the present case before this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners herein were possessing a diploma of Cath-Lab Technician, which was a two years course in which the operation of the ECG and training for the operation of ECG machine was given as a practical course. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the two years Diploma course of Cath-Lab Technician is superior to that of the certificate course for an ECG Technician, which is only of one year course and therefore, the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners by the respondent No.5 was unlawful only on the ground that they did not possess the one year certificate course of ECG Technician. Upon examining the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry's case (supra), the factual aspect that stands out clearly is that the petitioner therein possessed the 7 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 Master's degree in Forestry whereas, the qualification that was required for the Ranger Officer, Grade I, was B.Sc. in Forestry or equivalent. Therefore, the petitioner in that case could not have been put to a disadvantage only because he had a determinantively superior degree in the same subject, being an M.Sc. in Forestry and therefore, the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry's is different than that of the present petitioners.
10. The case of the petitioners herein would have been similar if they possessed advanced certificate course or Diploma course of ECG Technician which was more intensive than that of an ECG Technician certificate course, then certainly the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry would have been applicable to the case of the petitioners herein. However, undisputedly, the training of the petitioners was as Cath-Lab Technicians and in the practical of the said diploma course, they were also trained in the usage of the ECG equipment. However, on page 60 of the petition is the syllabus of the ECG Technical Training Courses is for one year. The theoretical aspects of the training in the one year certificate course for ECG Technician is far more elaborate and different from that of those trained as Cath-Lab Technician. The Theoretical subjects are 8 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 listed from S.No.1 to 12 in the said syllabus (page 60 of the petition). Some of them are common to both the ECG Technician and those who have undergone the training as Cath-Lab Technician.
11. The document relating to the M.P. Paramedical Council, which is a letter dated 27.05.2021, which opines that those who have undergone the training of Cath-Lab Technician are capable of working on the post of ECG Technician, cannot be taken into consideration by this Court at this juncture, as the Syllabus prepared by the Paramedical Council for that of the ECG Technician and for Cath-Lab Technician, are not identical. Besides, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, the Gazette notification dated 22.08.2015 lays down mandatory requirement for an ECG Technician wherein, in S.No.2 in Column No.4, it is required that the candidate should possess one year certificate course as an ECG Technician. Under the circumstances, it was not possible for the Professional Examination Board to drop or curtail the mandatory requirement.
12. As stated earlier by this Court, there are similarities in the training and syllabus of a Cath-Lab Tehnician and ECG Technician, but the syllabus are 9 W.P. Nos.9863/2021 and 29042/2021 not identical and there are variations. The diploma course of Cath-Lab Technician is not superior and cannot be considered as a higher qualification than that of the certificate for the ECG Technician. It is certainly not comparable to a B.Sc. in Forestry, being inferior to that of a M.Sc. Degree in Forestry. Merely because there are certain commonalities in the syllabus, this Court cannot hold that a person who has done a certificate course as a Cath-Lab Technician is eligible to be appointed as an ECG Technician, even if he does not possess the one year course of ECG, as required at S.No.11 of the notification dated 22.08.2015 (Annex.R/2 at page 6 of the return filed by the respondents).
13. Under the circumstances, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition stands dismissed. The interim orders, if any, stands vacated.
(Atul Sreedharan) Judge pnm/a Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2022.01.19 17:28:00 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8