Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kiran Bala vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 July, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 26th, 2013
Kiran Bala
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.Goyat, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing the appointment of Khushwant Kaur, respondent No.4, to the post of Assistant Librarian on contract basis at Government Medical College, Patiala, being ineligible as she does not fulfill the basic educational qualification for the post i.e. diploma in library science and even does not have the requisite experience certificate.
Briefly, the facts are that an advertisement was issued by the Directorate of Research & Medical Education, Punjab (respondent No.2), inviting applications from the candidates for filing Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
up various posts on contract basis at Medical Colleges, Amritsar and Patiala on fixed salary, including one post of Assistant Librarian at Medical College, Patiala. The last date for submission of the applications was 17.9.2010. The educational qualifications, terms and conditions and proforma of the application were mentioned to be available on the website of the Department. As per the terms and conditions for appointment, the qualifications prescribed for the said post were Matric/Higher Secondary with diploma of Library Science and Punjabi upto Matric standard. Petitioner, being eligible, as she passed 10+2 examination and had diploma in Library and Information Science from Kurukshetra University, applied for the said post. The petitioner also possessed Bachelor's degree of Library and Information Science, which she passed in the year 2009 from Kurukshetra University. The date of interview was fixed on 16.12.2010, on which date interviews of 7 candidates, who were found eligible out of 9 applicants, were conducted.
The petitioner, during interview, came to know that official respondent Nos.2 and 3, who were conducting interviews of the candidates, were also considering even those candidates as eligible who were not possessing the minimum qualification of diploma in library science, as advertised. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.12.2010 to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Research, Punjab, respondent No.1. However, without taking any decision on the said representation, the result of the selection Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
was prepared and published, selecting and appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Librarian.
Petitioner, being aggrieved against the said selection and appointment, sought information under the Right to Information Act. The said information was supplied by the respondents to the petitioner, as per which the statutory rules governing the service specified that for appointment on the post of Assistant Librarian through direct source the qualification was Matric/Higher Secondary with Diploma of Library Science and Punjabi upto Matric standard. Further, the criteria for selection was also supplied to the petitioner, according to which one mark for every mark above 50% in Degree/Diploma was to be granted to a candidate. So far as the higher qualification/additional qualification (which should be more than the basic requisite qualification) is concerned, 10 marks were fixed for the same. 5 marks for every six months experience with a maximum of 30 marks were enumerated and 10 marks were assigned for interview.
As per the petitioner, the experience certificate obtained by respondent No.4 does not fulfill the requirement as per the criteria fixed in the terms and conditions attached to the post, as per which the work experience shown in the experience certificate by the candidate should have been from any Government or semi- Government Institution for minimum period of six months. It has been further clarified that the experience certificate from the Government Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 4 }:
Institutions should have been certified by the Medical Superintendent or Civil Surgeon and if the experience certificate is of working in the semi-Government Institution, then it should be from the hospital of minimum 50 beds and copy of pay role of concerned issuing authority of the Institution duly signed from the Head of the Institution or Medical Superintendent or Directorate should be attached. In the experience certificate, report regarding behaviour of the employee for the abovesaid period was also to be mentioned and this experience certificate should be certified from Civil Surgeon of the District or competent authority of the office of the Labour Department at District level and latest statement of E.P.F and photocopy of E.S.I. card should be attached.
So far as the proposed experience certificate dated 14.9.2010, Annexure P-10, as submitted by respondent No.4 is concerned, the same has been issued by Thapar University, certifying that she had undergone practical training for six months.
The said period cannot be treated as an experience, which would entitle her to grant of marks under the head "experience". Contention has been raised that since respondent No.4 did not possess the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement i.e. Diploma in Library Science and has been treated as eligible by treating her degree as the minimum qualification, she cannot be granted the additional benefit of higher qualification. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting-aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.4. Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 5 }:
Upon notice, reply has been filed by the respondents, wherein the basic qualifications as prescribed under the rules and the advertisement have not been denied rather it is admitted that the requisite qualification is Diploma in Library Science. The selection criteria, as has been pointed out by the petitioner, has also not been disputed. It has been stated that although minimum qualification for the post is Diploma in Library Science but the candidates, who were possessing Degree in Library Science and had applied for the post of Assistant Librarian, were also considered for the said post. The candidates, who did not possess a diploma but possess a degree, were given one mark for each percentage in the degree course (on the same line as Diploma) over and above 50% and since they possessed a degree, which was a higher qualification than the one advertised, they were also given 10 marks for higher education in the field. The experience certificate possessed by respondent No.4 has been sought to be defended on the plea that the certificate issued by the Thapar University, Patiala, has been duly verified by the Labour Inspector, Grade I, Patiala and, therefore, the same has been treated to be a valid experience certificate, although it has been termed as a training for six months.
Reply filed by respondent No.4 is also based on the same lines. Counsel for respondent No.4 has basically placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010 (3) S.C.T. 703 to contend that the Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 6 }:
candidates possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from selection and, therefore, respondent No.4 was rightly treated as eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian, although the qualification prescribed for the said post was Diploma in Library Science.
Counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, pressed the issue that respondent No.4 does not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under the statutory rules and the advertisement, rendering her ineligible for consideration for appointment and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this short ground. His further submission is that if the qualification of Bachelor Degree of Library and Information Science is to be treated as equivalent qualification to Diploma in Library Science, then benefit of higher qualification cannot be granted to respondent No.4. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the observations made by the Full Bench in Manjit Singh's case (supra), wherein it has been held that the candidate having higher qualification may not be entitled to any additional weightage except that to be considered at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification if the higher qualification is in the same line as the basic qualification required for the post. On the basis of these contentions, the counsel has referred to merit list, Annexure P-9, prepared by the respondents, where apart from granting marks above 50% to respondent No.4, Khushwant Kaur, Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 7 }:
she has also been granted 10 marks for higher qualification, which, if excluded, would result in the petitioner scoring higher marks than respondent No.4 as she would now have 23.12 marks instead of 33.12 whereas the petitioner has scored 30.4 marks. Contention has also been raised with regard to the validity of the experience certificate of respondent No.4, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-10, by asserting that it is only a practical training, which has been undergone by respondent No.4 and cannot be termed as `experience' of working on the post of Assistant Librarian. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting-aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.4.
Counsel for the respondents have primarily relied upon a Full Bench judgement of this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra) to contend that respondent No.4 possesses higher qualification in the same line than the basic qualification as prescribed for the post and, therefore, has rightly been treated as eligible for consideration for appointment as Assistant Librarian. Since the qualification possessed by respondent No.4 is higher than the basic qualification prescribed for the post, granting of 10 additional marks for said higher qualification has also been justified by the respondents. As regards the experience certificate, Annexure P-10, it has been contended that since the certificate has been duly verified by the Labour Inspector, declaring it to be an experience certificate, the marks, which have been assigned to respondent No.4 for the said experience certificate, Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 8 }:
cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been made.
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Admittedly, the qualifications prescribed, as per the conditions and the statutory rules, require a candidate to be possessing Diploma in Library Science. It is further not disputed that the petitioner possessing the said qualification is also possessing Bachelor degree of Library and Information Science from Kurukshetra University. The fact that respondent No.4 does not possess the Diploma in Library Science has also been admitted. Reliance has been placed on the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra) to contend that a candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line and discipline is to be treated as eligible and cannot be excluded from selection as this would result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
This contention of counsel for the respondents cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.4 did not possess the requisite qualification for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian cannot be accepted in the light of Manjit Singh's case (supra). However, contention of the petitioner that even if respondent No.4 did possess the requisite qualification for consideration for appointment, she would not be Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 9 }:
entitled to extra weightage of marks for higher qualification, does carry weight and for that the decision of the Full Bench would go against the respondents. Reference made to the Full Bench stands answered in Para 27 of the judgement in Manjit Singh's case (supra), which reads as follows:-
"From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from consideration for selection. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reference is answered accordingly."
It is apparent from the above that although respondent No.4 would be entitled for consideration for selection but she would not be entitled to any additional weightage of higher qualification. For this, there is a reason, which weighed in the mind of the Court as the higher qualification possessed by the candidate, who is being treated to be possessing the equivalent qualification by the fiction of law as laid down in Manjit Singh's case (supra), is that the candidate Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 10 }:
possessing the requisite qualification, is to be treated as minimum qualification qua that candidate, meaning thereby that the higher qualification possessed by that candidate would be treated as the basic qualifying qualification under the rules and, therefore, would not be entitled to further additional weightage on the basis of said very qualification.
In the present case, since the qualification of Bachelor Degree of Library and Information Science possessed by respondent No.4 has been treated as a qualifying qualification, the same cannot simultaneously be treated as a higher qualification for granting her the additional benefit/weightage. Thus, 10 marks have wrongly been granted to respondent No.4 for higher qualification by the official respondents.
As regards the experience certificate dated 14.9.2010, Annexure P-10, as submitted by respondent No.4, the same also cannot be taken into consideration as experience certificate as the said certificate shows that respondent No.4 had undergone practical training for six months and has not worked as an Assistant Librarian. The experience certificate should have been on the post of Assistant Librarian, which aspect is missing in the said certificate, although it is stated to have been counter-signed by the Labour Inspector, Grade I, Patiala. Further, as per condition 11-A, not only the experience certificate was required but it also mandated submission of latest statement of E.P.F. and photocopy of E.S.I. Card, which are missing. Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 11 }:
The said certificate, thus, does not fulfill the requisites as per the terms and conditions prescribed as per the advertisement for consideration of the experience certificate as provided in Condition Nos.11 and 11A. Consequently, 5 marks, which have been granted to respondent No.4 for her experience, also deserve to be excluded. The result of the above is that respondent No.4 would now have 18.12 marks whereas the petitioner has scored 30.4 marks.
During the course of hearing, an argument was raised by counsel for the respondents that name of the petitioner figures at Sr.No.3 of the merit list and one Bhim Singh is at Sr.No.2 of the merit list and, thus, would have a prior right of appointment since he has been granted total 31.87 marks. It would not be out of way to mention here that Bhim Singh also does not possess the basic qualification of Diploma in Library Science and possesses a Bachelor's Degree as is the case of respondent No.4. If that be so, he also is not entitled to grant of 10 marks for higher qualification, as has been granted to him by the Interview Committee. This would leave him with 21.87 marks. Another aspect, which goes against the claim of Bhim Singh is that he has accepted the selection as it is and has not approached this Court, claiming appointment as an Assistant Librarian and, therefore, it cannot be said that he would be entitled to appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian prior to the petitioner, especially when the marks on account of higher qualification cannot be granted to him also, as it has been so held in the case of respondent No.4, with Khurmi Rakesh 2013.07.26 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3419 OF 2011 :{ 12 }:
whom his case is at par and the same reasoning would apply in his case as well.
Therefore, since now the petitioner possesses higher marks than respondent No.4 as also Bhim Singh, she would have a better claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian.
In the view of the above detailed discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The selection and appointment of respondent No.4, being not in accordance with the criteria laid down by the official respondents, cannot be sustained and, therefore, stand quashed. Direction is issued to the official respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
July 26th, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
khurmi JUDGE
Khurmi Rakesh
2013.07.26 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh