Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Pt. B.D. Sharma University Of Health ... on 28 September, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012
Date of decision: 28th September, 2012
Raj Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner is a matriculate with the subjects of Science. He has also passed two years' Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from the Institute of Para Medical Technology, Pahari Chatterpur, New Delhi. As per the further averments, he has also passed 10+2 in the Science subjects from the Board of School Education, Haryana and has further obtained the Degree in Bachelor of Medical Laboratory Technology (BMLT) in the year 2007 from Allahabad Agricultural Institute, which is a deemed university. It is further averred that the petitioner has further passed Masters of Science (Clinical Microbiology) Examination from Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.
The petitioner worked as a Laboratory Technologist in a private Laboratory with effect from 9th June, 2007 upto May 2009 as per the experience certificate (Annexure P-6) and as a Laboratory Technician at Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 2 Community Health Centre, Farukh Nagar (Gurgaon) from 4th June, 2009 to 4th December, 2009 as per experience certificate (Annexure P-7).
The respondent-University advertised posts of Laboratory Technician vide an advertisement No.1/2008 dated 4th July, 2008. The last date of submission of applications was 12th August, 2008. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued and the closing date was notified as 31st January, 2010. As per the advertisement, the qualifications prescribed for the said post were as under:
"i) Matric with Science and Physics and Chemistry;
ii) Diploma in Laboratory Technician Course from Public Health Laboratory, Karnal or any other institution recognized by Haryana Govt.
iii) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard."
The petitioner, who fulfilled the aforesaid qualifications, submitted his application before the closing date. He was issued Roll No.100063. The written examination was held on 27th March, 2011. The petitioner appeared in the said written examination and secured 92 marks out of 150. Thereafter, he was called for the interview vide interview letter dated 3rd May, 2011. According to the petitioner, he is a meritorious candidate and had done very well in the interview, but to his surprise he was not selected for the said post in the General category and instead other 34 candidates in the General category have been selected who, according to the petitioner, are less meritorious than him.
By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid selection process for the post of Laboratory Technician, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection list (Annexure P-11), the same being illegal, arbitrary and unfair; with a further Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 3 direction to the official respondents to select and appoint the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Technician.
The grievance raised by the petitioner before this Court is that while making selection, the respondent-authorities have adopted a new criteria for selection and appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician, as while finalizing the selection the marks of written examination have been ignored and the selection has been finalized on the basis of academic qualification, experience and the interview only. According to the petitioner, had the marks of written examination been taken into consideration, he would have been selected; and the marks of written examination were ignored by the respondents only to favour their own candidates.
A further grievance has been raised that the criteria, as adopted by the respondents, has not been applied correctly as the petitioner has been denied marks on account of experience and higher education, whereas on the other hand respondent No.3 has been awarded extra marks for extra-curricular activities and experience against the record. It is further argued that had there been correct application of the criteria then the petitioner would have secured 59.23 total marks, whereas respondent No.3 would have got 58.84 total marks and thus, in that eventuality the petitioner would have been selected; and therefore, the impugned selection is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician.
To support the aforesaid argument, in para No.11 of the writ petition the petitioner has averred as under:
"That the petitioner was having the experience on the post in question in a private institute as well in the Govt. Hospital. But no marks have been awarded to the petitioner for Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 4 the experience. Further, the petitioner was eligible on the basis of B.Sc. (L.T.), but the petitioner has been given 1 mark for B.Sc. (Lab. Tech.) whereas he should have been awarded two marks for the same. It is further submitted that petitioner has also acquired the qualification of M.Sc. (Clinical Microbiology), therefore, he should have been awarded 3 marks for the same. The petitioner was having the experience of three years, therefore, he was entitled for 1.5 marks for the same. If he had been awarded the marks according to his academic qualification as well as experience then he and respondent would get the following marks:
Subject Marks obtained Marks obtained
by petitioner by respondent
Professional 32.73 34.84
qualification
Higher Professional 05.00 -
qualification
(2-B.Sc.+3-M.Sc.)
Experience (three years) 01.50 5.00
Extra curricular 00.00 1.00
Interview 20.00 18.00
Total marks 59.23 58.84
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for selection over and above the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the ½ marks would be given for experience of one completed year. The respondent No.3 is/was not having 10 years experience, therefore, he has been given 5 marks wrongly. Further, one mark for extra-curricular has also been awarded wrongly to the respondent. These marks have been given to the respondent No.3 to bring him in the selection zone otherwise, he was not entitled for the selection and appointment on the post in question. Thus, the selection and appointment of the respondent No.3 is total illegally, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and the same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court."Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 5
I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the documents produced before this Court.
Though an argument has been raised that the marks in the written examination have been ignored by following a new criteria, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that the marks of written examination were to be added while making selection. In the reply to the application filed under Right To Information Act, 2005 (Annexure P-13), it has been clearly stated by the respondents that the written examination was only in the nature of screening test for the purpose of short-listing the candidates and those marks were not to be added. It was also made clear that the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee for assessing the marks was, on the basis of academic qualifications including experience and interview etc. It may further be noticed that in the general terms and conditions of the advertisement, it has been specifically stated that the appointing authority can hold a written test for short-listing the candidates for interview or on the basis of rational criteria and the decision of the appointing authority in all matters relating to the criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding upon the candidates. There is nothing on record to suggest that such a criteria cannot be adopted or the criteria adopted for selection is bad.
At this stage, the criteria adopted by the respondents be also noticed, which is as under:
- Basic qualification : 30 marks
- Professional qualification : 30 marks
- Higher professional qualification : 5 marks
- Experience : 5 marks
- Extra-curricular activities : 5 marks
- Interview : 25 marks
Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 6
It may further be noticed that though the petitioner was supplied the criteria under Right To Information Act vide Annexure D attached with letter dated 30th September, 2011 (Annexure P-13) but the same has not been placed on record and the aforesaid criteria has been culled out on the basis of the averments made by the petitioner himself in different paragraphs of the writ petition.
At this stage, it may also be noticed that 65 marks allotted for Basic Qualification, Professional Qualification and Higher Professional Qualification were divided as under:
"Academic Qualification : 65 marks Basic qualification: (Matric with Science i.e. Physics and Chemistry) 30% marks of the total aggregate %age of marks, obtained in Matric with Science (Physics and Chemistry). (30 marks) Professional qualification:
(Diploma/degree in Laboratory Technician Course) (30 marks) 30% marks of the total aggregate %age of marks obtained in Diploma/degree in Laboratory Technician Course.
Note: 60% marks of the total aggregate %age of marks obtained in matric with Science (Physics and Chemistry) for the Ex-servicemen candidates only). Higher Professional Qualification:
(Subject to maximum of 05 marks) (05 marks)
B.Sc. (Laboratory Technology) 1 mark
(If the candidate is eligible on the basis of B.Sc. (L.T.) B.Sc. (Laboratory Technology) 2 marks (over and above the required qualification) M.Sc. (Laboratory Technology/ Clinical Microbiology) 3 marks Ph.D. (Laboratory Technology/ Clinical Microbiology) 5 marks"Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 7
As per petitioner's own averments, the respondents have allotted 5 maximum marks for experience and 0.5 minimum marks were to be awarded for one year's experience.
In view of the averments made with regard to the marks allotted, as noticed above and the averments made by the petitioner in this petition, this Court is of the opinion that the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived and misleading also. In fact, no comparison is possible between the petitioner and respondent No.3, as the petitioner has not placed on record the break-up of marks on the basis of qualifications, given to him as well as to respondent No.3 in spite of the fact that the same were supplied to him under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure-E attached with the letter dated 30th September, 2011(attached as Annexure P-13 with the writ petition). Not only this, the petitioner has not even given the details of the basic/professional/higher professional qualifications and experience of respondent No.3, without which the comparison made by the petitioner with respondent No.3 is not possible and cannot be taken into consideration for appraisal of selection criteria.
It may further be noticed at this stage that in para No.2 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has also passed Master of Science (Clinical Microbiology) Examination from Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar in the month of March 2010 and a photostat copy of the said certificate dated 10th July, 2010 is attached as Annexure P-5. Furthermore, in para No.8 of the writ petition, the same averment has been reiterated and thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid averments in para No.11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed three marks on the basis of his qualification of M.Sc. (Clinical Microbiology). However, a perusal of the certificate (Annexure P-5) would show that the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 8 passed only the first semester of Master of Science (Clinical Microbiology) in the examination held in March 2010. Whereas, the last date for submission of the application forms for the post of Laboratory Technician was 31st January, 2010.
From the aforesaid facts, it is clearly established that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by making out a case for credit of three marks on the basis of certificate (Annexure P-5); whereas the said certificate shows the result of first semester examination held in March 2010 only, and that too, after the last date for submission of the application forms. On the other hand, the petitioner is also guilty of suppressing the material evidence with regard to the qualifications and experience etc. and the marks obtained by respondent No.3, despite the fact that complete information was given to him by the respondent-authorities under Right to Information Act vide Annexures E and G attached with the letter dated 30th September, 2011 (Annexure P-13). For the reasons best known to the petitioner, despite the fact that the aforesaid letter dated 30th September, 2011 has been placed on record of this writ petition as Annexure P-13, the documents attached thereto by the respondent-authorities as Annexures E and G, as given to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, have not been placed on record of this case.
It may further be noticed that as per his own averments in para No.11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed 59.23 marks for which he was entitled to on the basis of criteria which also includes 3 marks for the qualification of M.Sc. (Clinical Microbiology). In case the aforesaid 3 marks to which he is not entitled are deducted from the marks of 59.23, as claimed by the petitioner, his total marks in any case cannot exceed 56.23 Civil Writ Petition No.1086 of 2012 9 in all probabilities, and even then as per his own showing he could not be selected.
In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and thus, the same is dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE September 28, 2012 rps