Patna High Court - Orders
Vikash Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 June, 2014
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21512 of 2012
======================================================
1. Vikash Ranjan S/O Shankar Dayal Singh Resident Of Mohalla- Biratpur,
P.S+ P.O- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Government
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate- Cum- Chairman District Health Society,
Aurangabad.
3. The Civil Surgeon- Cum- Member Secretary, District Health Society,
Aurangabad.
4. The State Health Society, Parivar Kalyan Bhawan, Sheikhpura through
Its Executive Director- Cum- Secretary through Its Executive Director-
Cum- Secretary.
5. Shri Kumar Manoj S/O Dr. R.K. Singh District Programme Manager,
District Health Society Block, Parisar, District- Aurangabad.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, advocate
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Kumar Alok, advocate
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. K. K. Sinha, advocate
For the State : Mr. P. K. Verma, AC to SC 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
CAV ORDER
6 26 -06-2014In this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of office order dated 19.09.2012 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Member Secretary, District Health Society, Aurangabad whereby respondent No.5 has been appointed as District Programme Manager in Aurangabad district for a period of three years on contract basis and he further seeks a direction to appoint him on the said post.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-20142/11
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the District Health Society, Aurangabad inviting applications for the post of District Programme Manager published in daily Hindustan on 20.04.2012, the petitioner and other interested persons including Respondent No.5 had applied. The said advertisement prescribed the following qualification for appointment to the post of District Programme Manager in the Society:-
"Qualification. The ideal candidate will have a Post Graduate Degree/Diploma of 2 years in Management (MBA)/ Health Administration/ Health Management/ Social work/ Rural Management.
Candidate fulfilling the following attributes will be given preference.
1. Minimum five years relevant post qualification experience.
2. Computer proficiency with high level of familiarity with commonly used MS office & Database package.
3. Excellent Oral & Written communication & presentation skill in English, Hindi & local language.
4. High Initiative taking capacity & familiarity with Socio-economic condition of the State.
5. Experience of working in the NGO sector, preferably in the context of health. Some experience in working with Government system will be added advantage."
3. It is the petitioner's case that he holds MBA degree from Ranchi University which he obtained in the year 2002 and he has been working as Block Health Manager in Barun block of Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 3/11 Aurangabad district since 12.04.2007. He, therefore, possesses relevant post qualification experience of more than five years. The applicants, thereafter, participated in the written examination as well as interview and, accordingly, the selection committee prepared a panel of candidates. The petitioner has been placed at serial No.3 whereas respondent No.5 at serial No.2 in the merit list prepared by the selection committee. One Gyanendra Shekhar was placed at serial No.1 in the merit list but he did not join as he was working as District Programme Manager, Khagaria. Accordingly, respondent No.5, who was placed at serial No.2 in the merit list came to be appointed by the impugned order.
4. The case of the petitioner is primarily based on the contention that respondent No.5 has acquired MBA degree in 2009-2011 session in December, 2011 under distance education course by Punjab Technical University and he did not possess five years post qualification experience as required in the advertisement, which was essential for giving preference to aspirants on the ground of post qualification experience. It is further plea of the petitioner that respondent No.5 in support of his claim of experience submitted a certificate of him having functioned as District Monitoring and Evaluation Officer at District Health Society, Nalanda from 01.06.2005, and the Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 4/11 requisite qualification for appointment as District Monitoring and Evaluation Officer was MCA (Master in Computer Application) and not MBA. It is, therefore, contended that he was not entitled to any weightage on the ground of post qualification experience as mentioned in the list of attributes on the basis of which preference could be given to the candidates. In this background, the plea of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 has wrongly been awarded five marks for experience in Government sector since he acquired MBA degree in December, 2012 and he did not possess minimum five years post qualification experience. The petitioner has brought on record, by way of annexure-8, merit list for the post of District Programme Manager, Aurangabad, from which it appears that following marks were awarded to the petitioner and respondent No.5 against various heads:-
Name Experience Experience Marks Marks for Total Marks in Govt. for interview Sector written test Kumar Manoj- 15 5 22 32 74 respondent No.5 Vikash Ranjan- 15 5 24 28 72 petitioner
5. From the pleadings as well as submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it has transpired that petitioner has no Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 5/11 grievance with respect to marks awarded to him and respondent No.5 against total years of experience, written test and interview. The only grievance the petitioner has is that respondent No.5 was wrongly given five marks for experience in Government sector since he did not have minimum five years of post qualification experience as per the said advertisement, which could have entitled him for any weightage as per the advertisement.
6. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently contended that no marks could have been awarded to the petitioner for his experience in Government sector as he did not have requisite post qualification experience. According to him, post qualification experience could be counted only from the date he acquired minimum education qualification as per the advertisement and his experience prior to acquisition of the said qualification could not have been taken into account for giving him any weightage for experience in Government sector. He has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in (2001) 2 SCC 362 (Indian Air Lines Ltd. vs. S. Gopala Krishnan) to contend that pre qualification experience could not have been counted for the purpose of awarding marks against experience in Government sector. He has also placed reliance upon another Supreme Court Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 6/11 judgement reported in (1998) 8 SCC 771 ( All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India) to contend that the Supreme Court refused to entertain the experience of Legal Assistants working in different institutions other than the courts for the purpose of counting as experience at the Bar.
7. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent- State Health Society contending, inter alia, that process of selection was transparent and impartial. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that candidates having work experience in Government sector were given due weightage. It has been stated that respondent No.5 had worked on the post of District Monitoring and Evaluation Officer as senior executive whereas the petitioner had worked on the post of Health Manager as executive and thus respondent No.5 had experience of working at a post higher than that of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the experience of respondent No.5 in Health Sector is more than the petitioner and, therefore, he being more deserving for the appointment on the post of District Programme Manager, was rightly selected. It has been specifically stated that respondent No.5 with degree of MCA has computer proficiency of high level and work experience of more than six years in Government health sector and four years in other Government sector. Considering Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 7/11 these aspects, it has been stated that respondent No.5 was rightly awarded five preference marks which cannot be said to be unreasonable.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, it has been asserted that he possessed requisite qualification of MBA after having passed the examination in the year 2011 from Punjab Technical University, which is recognized and approved by UGC, AICTE, DEC (IGNOU). It has been contended on behalf of respondent No.5 that it was incorrect to say that post MBA experience was the only criteria for awarding marks for experience as per the advertisement. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in (2010) 8 SCC 373 ( Basavaiah vs. Dr. H. L. Ramesh) in order to submit that post qualification experience as indicated in the advertisement would not mean experience after acquiring the minimum qualification as per the advertisement. He contends that computer proficiency with high level of familiarity with commonly used MS Office & Database management was also one of the attributes for which preference was required to be given as per the advertisement. He secondly submits that in any event, marks has been awarded also for experience of working with Government system as stipulated in Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 8/11 the advertisement and award of five marks for that attribute cannot be faulted with.
9. On the basis of pleadings and rival submissions of the parties, it is evident that the dispute in the present writ application is within a very narrow compass, i.e., whether respondent No.5 was not entitled to five marks on the ground that he did not have the post qualification experience. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to Annexure- R 5/4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 which contains the proceedings of the selection committee constituted for the purpose of selection of candidates on the basis of advertisement in question. From the said annexure, it appears that selection committee decided to award 15 marks for total experience and five marks separately for experience in Government sector (one mark for each year of experience).
10. Referring to the said annexure, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even if that criteria was to be adopted for awarding marks for experience in Government sector, respondent No.5 could not have been awarded five marks as he did not have five years of post qualification experience in Government sector.
11. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 9/11 petitioner that no pre qualification experience could be counted for the purpose of awarding marks against experience and qualification would mean minimum educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement.
12. The contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. From the advertisement, it would appear that the minimum qualification has been prescribed as Post Graduate Degree/ Diploma of 2 years in Management (MBA)/ Health Administration/ Health Management/ Social work/ Rural Management. The advertisement further prescribed that preference would be given to the candidates for different attributes, which were five in number, as mentioned in the advertisement. Minimum five years post qualification experience is one of the attributes for which preference was to be given as per the advertisement. It cannot be said that preference could not be given on the basis of other attributes mentioned in the advertisement including "experience of working in NGO sector, preferably in context of health, some experience in working with Government system will be added advantage" as appearing in the advertisement.
13. It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 had experience of working in Government sector. The selection committee decided to award five marks for experience in Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 10/11 Government sector. Therefore, award of five marks against the said attribute cannot be said to be completely baseless. This court in exercise of power of judicial review has a limited role in the matters of selection to various posts by an expert committee. This is to be kept in mind that no malafide has been alleged against the selection committee.
14. Reliance placed upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Air Lines Ltd.(supra) by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is misplaced. In that case requisite qualification for appointment to the post was two years experience in equipment operating or driving and it required that the said experience would be computed after the date of acquiring necessary qualification. In the present case post qualification experience of five years was one of the five attributes on the basis of which preference could be given. In the case of Indian Air Lines Ltd. (supra) a candidate would not have been entitled to be considered for appointment if he did not have requisite experience after acquiring the necessary qualification. This is not the situation in the present case. Therefore, the said judgement of the Supreme Court has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The order of the Supreme Court reported in the case of All India Judges' Association vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.21512 of 2012 (6) dt.26-06-2014 11/11 Union of India (supra) is completely irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present case.
In view of submission, as above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned selection. This writ application does not have any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) BKS/-
U