Jharkhand High Court
Neelam Kerketta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 7 March, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019
---
Neelam Kerketta ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi .... ... Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019
---
Mantu Rajwar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Jharkhand State Paramedical Council through its Secretary-cum-Executive Director, officiating from Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Campus, Ranchi
4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Chairman .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate [W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019] Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate [W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019] For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II M/s. K.C. Suman & Gaurang Jajodia, ACs. to GP-II [W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019] Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr.S.C.-III Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to SrSC-II [W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019] For the Resp.-JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Order No. 11 Dated: 07.03.2024 W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4-the Examination 2 Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi to declare the petitioner successful in 'Jail Hospital Paramedical Combined Competitive Examination-2018' under 'Scheduled Tribe' category pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2018. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Important Notice No. 10 dated 16.04.2019 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner has been declared ineligible and her candidature has been cancelled on the ground that she has not submitted required certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'.
2. W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of 'X-Ray Technician' pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2018 as vide Important Notice No. 10 dated 16.04.2019, he has been declared ineligible and his candidature has been cancelled by the respondent- JSSC on the ground that he possesses certificate of 'Diploma in CT Scan Technician' instead of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Neelam Kerketta submits that the petitioner completed one year 'Diploma Course in Radiography' conducted by the Department of Radiology, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga (Bihar) during the session-1997-1998 and a certificate to that effect was issued to her vide memo no. 783 dated 11.03.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner got 3 herself registered under the Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi, vide registration no. 1686 dated 17.09.2014 and till the date of filing of the present writ petition, she was working on contractual basis in Sadar Hospital, Doranda as a paramedical Staff.
4. It is further submitted that Advertisement No. 01/2018 was issued by the respondent no. 4 for conducting the Jail Hospital Paramedical Combined Competitive Examination-2018 for appointment of eligible Para-Medical Staffs on the various vacant posts in different Jail Hospitals of the State of Jharkhand. As per the said advertisement, altogether 10 posts of 'X-Ray Technician' were advertised, out of which 3 posts were reserved for 'Scheduled Tribe' category. The petitioner applied for the post of 'X- Ray Technician' under the 'Scheduled Tribe' category and after being declared successful in the written test, she was called vide Important Notice No. 06 dated 08.02.2019 for verification of documents which was scheduled to be held on 14.02.2019.
5. The petitioner appeared for documents verification and got all her documents verified, however vide letter no. 2569 dated 14.02.2019, she was asked to submit the original certificate of Intermediate, pursuant to which she submitted the said certificate within the stipulated date and time. Subsequently, letter no. 2744 dated 28.02.2019 was issued by the respondent no. 4 asking the petitioner to submit the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' mentioning that she had submitted the certificate of 'Diploma Course in 4 Radiography'. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority of Department of Radiology, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai (Bihar) from where she had completed 'Diploma in Radiography' and a testimony as contained in memo no. 111 dated 05.03.2019 was issued under the signature of Professor-cum-Head of the Department of Radio Diagnosis, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai (Bihar) clarifying that the 'Diploma in Radiography' and 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' are the name of same course. It was also clarified in the said testimony that prior to the year 2000, certificates of 'Diploma in Radiography' were issued instead of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. On receipt of the said certificate, the petitioner represented the respondent no. 4 enclosing a copy of aforesaid testimony and stated the entire facts, however she was not included in the final result of the said examination published vide Important Notice No.-08 dated 16.04.2019. Thereafter, the impugned Important Notice No. 10 dated 16.04.2019 was issued to the petitioner informing about cancellation of her candidature.
6. It is also submitted that on receipt of the impugned important notice dated 16.04.2019, the petitioner found that she was declared ineligible and her candidature was cancelled on the ground that she had not submitted the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. Moreover, the testimony issued by the Professor-cum-Head of the Department of Radio Diagnosis, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai (Bihar) as submitted by the petitioner was rejected on an ambiguous and 5 unreasonable ground. As per Important Notice No.-09 dated 16.04.2019 issued by the respondent no. 4, the last selected candidate for the post of 'X-ray Technician' under 'Scheduled Tribe' category had secured 215 marks whereas the score card issued by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner shows that she had obtained 239 marks.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ground of rejection mentioned by the respondent no. 4 is in contravention of the decision taken by the Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi in the meeting of its Governing Council held on 15.02.2018, whereby a unanimous decision was taken to issue the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray/Radiography Technician' to all the paramedical students of Radiology Department. It is also submitted that one post of X-Ray Technician is still vacant and the petitioner can be accommodated on the said post as the rejection of her candidature is illegal.
8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this court in the case of Ranjeet Prabhakar Vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1111, wherein it was held that since the appellant's exclusion from the merit list was illegal, his right to claim appointment on the post of Forest Guard did not extinguish by efflux of time as there was no laches or delay on his part in raising his claim.
6
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 162, in which it was held that since no fresh exercise of recruitment had been undertaken, the remaining notified vacancy of one post continued to exist and it was in the interest of justice that the petitioner's candidature was to be considered for appointment against the remaining one vacancy available under the 4th Combined Limited Deputy Collector Recruitment Examination.
Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2018 issued by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner applied for the post of 'X-Ray Technician' under 'Scheduled Caste' category on 28.08.2018 and after getting successful in the written test held on 02.12.2018, he was called to appear on 14.02.2019 for document verification, where he submitted the certificate of 'Diploma in CT Scan Technician' instead of 'Diploma in X-ray Technician' which was not accepted by the respondent- JSSC.
11. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 14.03.2019 issued by the Secretary-JSSC, the petitioner was asked to produce certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' by 18.03.2019 (till 1:00 P.M.). The petitioner, thereafter, wrote an application to the Secretary-cum-Executive Director, Jharkhand 7 State Paramedical Council, Ranchi on 16.03.2019 and requested to issue certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray/Radiography Technician' by converting his earlier issued certificate of 'Diploma in C.T. Scan Technician'. A meeting of the Governing Council of the Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi was held on 15.02.2018 wherein it was decided to issue the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray/Radiography Technician' to all the paramedical students of Radiology Department by cancelling the earlier certificates issued to them.
12. Thereafter, vide office order as contained in memo no. 216 dated 30.10.2018 issued by the Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi, it was informed that in the light of decision taken in the meeting dated 15.02.2018 of the Governing Council to the effect that the certificates of CT Scan, MRI etc. earlier issued to all those paramedical students of Radiology Department would be cancelled and they would be issued certificates of 'Diploma in X-ray/Radiography Technician', the last date for submission of application in this regard was fixed as 09.11.2018.
13. Since the petitioner was unaware of the last date, he submitted application for converting his certificate from 'Diploma in CT Scan Technician' to 'Diploma in X-Ray/Radiography Technician' on 16.03.2019 which was rejected by the Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi and decision of the same was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 72 dated 02.04.2019 mentioning that the students having certificates of 'Diploma in CT Scan Technician' were also provided training of X- 8 Ray/Radiography.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent-JSSC, vide its impugned Important Notice No. 10 dated 16.04.2019, rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' despite the fact that he had submitted minutes of the meeting dated 15.02.2018 of the Governing Council of Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, Ranchi as supporting evidence.
Argument advanced on behalf of the respondent-JSSC
15. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent- JSSC submits that as per Clause-5 (vi) of the advertisement in question, a candidate was required to pass Intermediate/10+2 examination with Science subjects as well as 'Diploma Course in X-ray Technician' from an institute constituted by law and recognized by the Government. The candidate was also required to be registered with Paramedical Council of the State of Jharkhand or any other State and should have general knowledge of Computer. It was specifically mentioned in Clause-9 of the said advertisement that the applicants were required to satisfy themselves before submission of application form by ensuring that they were fulfilling the terms and conditions of the said advertisement and were possessing all the requisite certificates issued by the competent authorities in support of their claims made in the application forms.
16. It is further submitted that the petitioners in their online application forms had mentioned their educational 9 qualification as 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician', however on the date of verification of the testimonials, the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2163 of 2019-Neelam Kerketta produced certificate of 'Diploma Course in Radiography' and the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019 - Mantu Rajwar produced certificate of 'Diploma in C.T Scan Technician' in place of the required certificate of 'Diploma in X- Ray Technician'. Hence, the petitioners were issued show cause notices. The petitioner- Neelam Kerketta submitted her reply on 05.03.2019 but failed to submit any certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' and stated that her course was equivalent to 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician', however her claim was not found to be satisfactory. As such, her candidature was cancelled vide impugned Important Notice dated 16.04.2019.
17. It is also contended that the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2196 of 2019-Mantu Rajwar submitted reply along with the minutes of meeting dated 15.02.2018 of Jharkhand State Paramedical Council, however failed to submit any certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. The reply of the petitioner-Mantu Rajwar was also not found satisfactory and as such, his candidature was rejected vide impugned Important Notice dated 16.04.2019.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent- JSSC further submits that after verification of testimonials of the candidates, JSSC published the final result of successful candidates on 16.04.2019 for appointment against the advertised posts and thereafter also made recommendation for their appointment to 10 the State Government on 22.04.2019. The selection process pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2018 has already been completed in the year 2019. It is also submitted that laying down the qualification for appointment is a policy matter of the State Government and deciding the issue of equivalence of the degree is also within the domain and power of the State Government. Moreover, there was no mention in the advertisement in question that equivalent degree/diploma would be also considered.
Finding of the Court
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
20. The crux of the argument of learned counsels for the petitioners of both the writ petition is that the candidatures of the petitioners were arbitrarily rejected by the respondent-JSSC on the ground that they did not possess certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' despite the fact that the petitioner-Neelam Kerketta was holding the certificate of 'Diploma Course in Radiography' and the petitioner- Mantu Rajwar was holding 'Diploma in C.T Scan Technician'.
21. As per Advertisement No. 01/2018, the minimum qualification for the post of 'X-Ray Technician' was passing of Intermediate/10+2 examination with Science subjects along with possessing certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' from any institute established in accordance with law and recognized by the Government. The candidates were also required to be registered with Paramedical Council of State of Jharkhand or 11 other States. Further, the candidates were also required to have general knowledge of computer.
22. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. There is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. It has further been held that while prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as an employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which lead up to the acquisition of a qualification.
23. I have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 86 wherein it has been held that the equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is a matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification 12 by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification fixed by employer is to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting agency which is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether he/she is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection. Moreover, when the advertisement clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification shall be scrutinised, it is the duty and obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a candidate that his certificate of computer qualification is equivalent to 'Course on Computer Concepts' (CCC) has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility condition.
24. It is now well settled that the prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. It is not the part of the role or function of judicial review to expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Further, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which should be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by the employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting agency which is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate to assess the eligibility to participate in the selection process. If the advertisement clearly contemplates that the certificates mentioned in the application form pertaining to requisite qualifications have to be scrutinised, 13 it is the duty of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the certificates to find out the eligibility of the candidates.
25. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they were not holding the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' i.e. one of the requisite qualifications for being appointed on the post of 'X-Ray Technician'. Moreover, it was not stated in the advertisement in question that any equivalent certificate of the 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' would also be taken into consideration as valid for appointment on the said post.
26. The petitioners, by filing the present writ petitions, have claimed that the 'Diploma in Radiography' and 'Diploma in C.T Scan Technician' are same as the 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. The said claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained by this Court in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) and in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra) wherein it has been held that the power of judicial review should not be exercised to determine the equivalence of any qualification, rather the same is within the domain of the employer which is determined by taking into consideration bundle of factors.
27. That apart, if the claim of the petitioners is allowed, the same will cause serious prejudice to the persons who despite possessing the certificate of 'Diploma in Radiography' and 'Diploma in C.T. Scan Technician' did not fill up the application forms for the post of 'X-Ray Technician' on bonafide belief that they were not possessing the certificate of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. I am of the view that allowing the claim of the 14 petitioners will amount to creation of a class within a class which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Otherwise also, even if it is presumed that the petitioners' contentions have some substance and thereby they deserve certain indulgence of the Court, there is all possibility that the same will open a pandora box leading to a situation that several writ petitions will be filed by similarly situated persons and the recruitment process will never be finalized.
28. Learned counsels for the petitioners put reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2 wherein the appellant had wrongly mentioned his date of birth in the online application form as 08.12.1997 whereas in the school marksheet, his date of birth was mentioned as 18.12.1997. Their Lordships looking to the peculiar fact and circumstance of that case, set aside the judgment of learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court cancelling candidature of the appellant for the post of 'Constable' and directed the respondent-State to issue appointment letter to the appellant.
29. The observation made in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners since the facts and circumstance of the said case is totally different from that of the present case. In the case in hand, the petitioners do not hold the requisite qualification of possessing 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician', rather they are claiming that the courses of 'Diploma in Radiography' (with respect to the 15 petitioner-Neelam Kerketta) and 'Diploma in C.T. Scan Technician' (with respect to the petitioner-Mantu Rajwar) are equivalent to the course of 'Diploma in X-ray Technician' which this Court is not supposed to determine in exercise of power of judicial review.
30. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC has invited the attention of this Court to Clause 9 of the Advertisement No. 01/2018 wherein it was provided that a candidate should have original copies of the certificates which were mentioned in the online application forms and the same were essentially required to be produced at the time of documents verification failing which his/her candidature would be deemed to be cancelled.
31. In the case in hand, the petitioners in their online application forms, mentioned that they were holding certificates of 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' however they failed to show the said certificates at the time of document verification.
32. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Kumar & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (LPA No. 693 of 2019) wherein it has been held that if a condition has been stipulated in the advertisement, it cannot be deviated in any way and if any deviation is made, the same amounts to relaxation which is not permissible in law.
33. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also contended that in the online application forms, the petitioners were required to choose the option from the list of several 16 degrees mentioned in the given field and there was no option to write the names of their degrees i.e., 'Diploma in Radiography' or 'Diploma in C.T. Scan Technician'. As such, they chose 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician' which was similar to 'Diploma in Radiography' and 'Diploma in C.T. Scan Technician'.
34. I do not find any substance in the said argument of learned counsels for the petitioners particularly because if the petitioners had any confusion about the equivalence of degrees, they should have got their confusion clarified by approaching the respondent-JSSC before filling up the online application forms. However, they neither chose to get their confusion clarified nor opted to challenge the said format of application form wherein the option of 'Diploma in Radiography' or 'Diploma in C.T. Scan' was not provided.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/AFR