Ble High Court
Case Details
@ oY -(•^•^o IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.o? l^ | QF 2012 PETITIONERS 1. 2.- 3.- ^ 4. ^ ^^•^^ s^^". '^"^ Radhe Shyam Sahu aged about 31 years S/o Shri Premlal Sahu, R/o Village and Post Goghara Police Station- Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Ramesh Kumar Sahu aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Bindra Ram Sahu R/o Village and Post Goghara Police Station- Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Vivek Singh Verma, Aged about 37 Years S/o Taran Singh Verma, Vitlage Kandai, Post Kasesara, Thesil Saja District. Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Santosh Kumar Patel aged about 32 Years S/o Shri Mohan Singh Patel Village Dangniya Post Ghatranka Thesil Saja District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. r^Ashok Kumar Verma aged SSYears S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh Verma, R/o Village Bezzi Post Ghana Thesil Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. •^^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^. 1.<^§tate of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Raipur Mantralaya, Bhawan, D.K.S. 2. Director, Directorate Health Services, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3" TheCollector, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5\ Chief Medical Officer and Health Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ^ 6. Chief Medical Officer and Health Officer, .Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 7. Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council, through: its Registrar, Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council, D.K.S. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Bhawan, ® @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS lis"'^2^^: /^; \^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SJB^: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Writ Petition(8) No. 2680/2012, Writ Petition(S) No. 2463/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2183/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 666/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 667/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 668/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 192/2013, Writ Petition(8) No. 193/2013, Writ Petition(8) No. 187/2012, Writ Petition(S) No. 4257/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2060/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2085/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2940/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 301/2013, Writ Petition(S) No. 2224/2012, Writ Petition(3) No. 2326/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 211 5/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2111 /2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2125/201 2, Writ Petition(8) No. 21 23/2012, Writ Petition(3) No. 2107/2012, WritPetition(S) No. 2116/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2258/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2259/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2108/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 439/2013, Writ Petition(S) No. 2110/2012, Writ Petition(S) No. 2151/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 2336/2012, Writ Petition(3) No. 2667/2012, Writ Petition(3) No. 536/2013, Writ Petition(8) No. 2078/2012, Writ Petition(8) No. 317/2013, Writ Petition(S) No. 554/2013, Writ Petition(S) No. 853/2013, Writ Petition(3) No. 737/2013, Writ Petition(8) No. 799/2013, WritPetition(S) No. 954/2013, anc/ Writ Petition(8) No. 1280/2013. Writ Petitions u/A 226 ofthe Constitution of India
Decision
O RD E R POST ON ^rXuGUST.2Q13 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge @> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Writ PetitionfSl No. 2680/2012 1 -' PETITIONER Naresh Kumar Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others -^' PETITIONERS Writ PetitionfSl No. 2463/2012 Mohboob Khan & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 2183/2012 PETITIONERS Sanat Kumar Sahu & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 666/2012 PETITIONERS Ramanuj Lal Verma & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ Petition(Sl No. 667/2012 PETITIONERS Madhusudan Dhuri & another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ Petition(Sl No. 668/2012 PETITIONERS Prashant Kumar Mishra & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfS) No. 192/2013 PETITIONERS Soman Lal Verma & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 193/2013 PETITIONERS Bhanu Pratap Sahu & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others @; -2- Writ PetitionfSl No. 187/2012 Krishna Kumar Thakur Versus PETITIONER RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ Petition(Sl No. 4257/2012 PETITIONERS Shiv Kumar Karsh & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 2060/2012 ^" PETITIONER Lokeshwar Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 2085/2012 PETITIONER Pranav Kumar Pradhan Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 2940^012 PETITIONERS Ramesh Kumar & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 301/2013 PETITIONERS Sushil Kumar Sharma & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfS) No. 2224/2012 PETITIONERS Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal & another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfS) No. 2326/2012 PETITIONER Jeet Ram Kushwaha Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfS) No. 2115/2012 PETITIONERS Upendra Kumar Sahu & another RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus -3- Writ Petition(S) No. 2111/2012 PETITIONERS Lukeshwar Kumar Sahu & others RESPONDENTS ?tate of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfS) No. 2125/2012 PETITIONERS Trilochan Chaudhri & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ Petition(S) No. 2123/2012 PETITIONERS Tarun Kumar Dewangan & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfSl No. 2107/2012 PETITIONERS Manish Rajput & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 2116/2012 PETITIONERS Purushottam Kumar Sahu & another RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfSl No. 2258/2012 PETITIONERS Dinesh Kumar Rajwade & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfSl No. 2259/2012 PETITIONERS Sayed Ajaz Hasan Naqvi & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfS) No. 2108/2012 PETITIONERS Ramanujlal Verma & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfS) No. 439/2013 PETITIONER Jagdish Prasad Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others w ^A -4- Writ PetitionfSl No. 2110/2012 PETITIONERS Chitranjan Singh Nishad & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfSl No. 2151/2012 PETITIONERS Radhe Shyam Sahu & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 2336/2012 PETITIONERS Krishna Kumar Thakur & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfSl No. 2667/2012 PETITIONERS Someshwar Dhar Diwan & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ Petition(S) No. 536/2013 PETITIONERS Gajadhar Sinha & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others WritPetitionfSl No. 2078/2012 PETITIONERS Prashant Kumar Mishra & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfSl No. 317/2013 PETITIONERS Dinesh Kumar Dilliwar & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfS) No. 554/2013 PETITIONERS Ramesh Kumar Dicsena & another RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfSl No. 853/2013 PETITIONER Ramesh Kumar Miri Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others ?&.i^^^ s / (^9) -5- Writ PetitionfSl No. 737/2013 PETITIONERS Santosh Kumar Banjare & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus Writ PetitionfS) No. 799/2013 PETITIONERS Devendra Kumar & another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Writ PetitionfS) No. 954/2013 PETITIONERS Santosh Kumar Keshari & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus And Writ PetitionfSl No. 1280/2013 PETITIONERS Suresh Ekka and Ors. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Shri Prateek Sharma, Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri CJK Rao, Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Shri Ajit Singh, Shri Avinash Singh, Shri Rahul Tamasker, Shri Surfaraj Khan and Shri Pushkar Sinha, counsel for the respective petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Smt. Hamida Siddiqui and Shri Sameer Singh, counsel for the respective interveners. ORDER (Passed on _^\ugust, 2013) Heard. 1. By this common order, the aforesaid 39 writ petitions are being disposed issued by the Chief off as these petitions arise out of advertisement Medical & Health Officers of different districts in the State of Chhattisgarh for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) {for short -6- "MPHW (M"} in the department of Health and Family Welfare. In all the petitions, several common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the pleadings and documents of W.P. (S) No.2078/12 are being referred to. 3. Appointments to the post of MPHW(M) in the department of Health and Family Welfare are governed by the rules known as M.P./C.G. Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (related to the Directorate of Health Services), Class-111 Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989"). The essential qualifications for appointment to the post of MPhlW(M) have been prescribed in Schedule -III appended to the rules. MPHW(M) are engaged to work as Govt. servants in distant and remote rural areas to provide minimal health services. The Chief Medical and Health Officer has been prescribed as the Appointing Authority of MPHWM under Schedule-1 ofthe Rules of 1989. 4. Though, for various districts of in the year 2010, the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh issued advertisement inviting application for appointment to the post of MPHW(M) the State, writ petitions were filed the challenging the process of selection mainly on the ground that advertisement was not in accordance with the provisions of governing rules prescribing educational qualification, one such petition being W.P. (S) No. 155/11. Interim order was passed by this Court. Number of petitions were filed. When the matter stood thus, the process of selection initiated by advertisement dated 13.12.2010 was cancelled and information to this effect was published on 5.3.201 1 in the Newspaper. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the Directorate to re-advertise the post. In the year 2012, the Chief Medical and Health Officer of different districts in the State of Chhattisgarh issued advertisement for the purpose of filling up vacancies of MPHW(M). The advertisement was issued in different districts namely Raipur, Durg, Rajnandgaon, Dhamtari, Surajpur, Korba, Mahasamund, Baikunthpur, Bilaspur, Raigarh, Balrampur, Balod and Kabirdharm. In the aforesaid 39 petitions, the advertisement issued in the respective districts, as mentioned above, have been challenged by the respective petitioners. Large number of Paramedical practitioners seriously objected to the ..•.^^' -7- ©/ eligibility criteria prescribed under the advertisement mainly on the ground that Paramedicals who have obtained Paramedical Training Certificate and registered with Paramedical Council of the State should also be treated as having been possessed oftraining equivalent to that of M.P.H.W. (M) and, therefore eligible for appointment as M.P.H.W. (M). Objections were also raised by Paramedical practitioners in some districts i.e. Raipur, Surajpur, Ambikapur, Baikunthpur and Bilaspur that the educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement is contrary to the qualifications prescribed in the Rues of 1989 as amended in the year 1997. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions made elaborate submissions challenging the process of selection and prescription of eligibility criteria under the respective advertisement mainly on the ground that the petitioners in these petitions are Paramedicals who have obtained training in Paramedical Course and duly registered with one year Paramedical Council of the State under the provision of the Chhattisgarh "the Act of 2001"). The Paramedical Council Act, 2001 (fort short Paramedical Course is in all respect equivalent to the training course of MPHW. Therefore, the petitioners who are registered Paramedicals are also eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of MPHW(M) in the Health Department and, therefore, there exclusion by refusing equivalence is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Further contention is that in fact, the correspondences of the State to the post of authorities, qualification prescribed for appointment M.P.H.W. (M) in the advertisement dated 13.12.2010 {Annexure P-9 in W.P. (S) No.2078/12}, prescription of Registrar, Paramedical Council and similitude of syllabus prescribed for the course of instruction for MPHW and that of Paramedical Course prove that equivalence has already been drawn. In the alternative, it is submitted that identity of syllabus of the two courses of instructions requires that the two training courses should be treated as equivalent for the purposes of eligibility for appointment to the post of MPHW (M) under the rules of 1989. Further submission is that the Director, Health Services has already proposed equivalence tobe drawn, therefore, before decision could be taken by the State Govt, recruitment process in different districts ought not to have been initiated by respective Chief Medical and Health Officers and they should have awaited the ^o^ -8- decision of the StateGovt.. It has also been argued that in the matter of recruitment in the Police Department, for appointment to the post of Head the qualifications of Paramedical Training Course Constable (Nursing), certificate has been recognized. Therefore, there is no reason why in the matter of appointment to the post of MPHW (M), Paramedical Training Course should not be treated as equivalent to training of MPHW. 6. taking into consideration that It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the the two qualifications are State Govt., equivalent, has already relaxed the qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 1989 in the matter of appointment to the post of MPHW (M) vide its order dated 28th August, 2010 (Annexure P-12). Therefore, the petitioners who are holders of certificate of Paramedical Training Course are also eligible. Therefore, the petitioners' exclusion from the process of selection, on the ground that they are not possessed of MPHW Training for the Course is illegal. According to submissions of learned counsel petitioners, one time relaxation should mean that until the posts are filled up in one or more selection process, the relaxation would continue. 7. It is also argued that the eligibility qualifications for appointment to the post of MPHW(M) was amended in the year 1997 and after amendment, the only requirement is of 10th pass in 10+2 system, though preference may be given to those who have passed 10th class examination with subjects- Maths, Science and Biology. But ,in the advertisement issued by the Chief \ Medical and Health Officer in Raipur, Surajpur, Ambikapur, Baikunthpur and Bilaspur districts, the earlier/old qualifications of 12th pass under 10 +2 or 11th in the old pattern has been prescribed which is apparently contrary It has also to the requirement of the rules as amended in the year 1997. been argued that in Mahasamund District, priority is being given on the basis of date of acquisition of MPHW training certificate which is not prescribed under the rules. MPHW training from institution recognized by the State Govt. is arbitrary, It has also been argued that requirement of because there is no such institution recognized by the State Govt. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon judgments in the cases of Tariq Islam Vs. AIigarh Muslim University :^^^^ ..ys^.^^ ^ ^ '""^ ^ -9- and Ors.1, Km. Suman Upadhyaya and another Vs. Vice- Chancellor, Bir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jauvpur and Ors.2 and Sanjay Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. And Ors.3 8. Per contra, learned counsel these petitions, has opposed the prayer of the writ petitioners on the submission that in the the recruitment the eligibility qualifications prescribed is that for the State, rules, in all candidate should have passed prescribed one year training course of MPHW(M). The training which is imparted in Paramedical Course is not one and the same. Statutory prescription under the rule does not include holder of one year Paramedical Course Certificate eligible for appointment. Therefore, unless Paramedical course training is included in the rules or the experts draw equivalence, petitioners cannot claim to be qualified. He further argued that the objective of training of MPHW is to implement various Govt. the object of providing Paramedical training is to equip health workers in the larger interest of health schemes, whereas, rural masses and to save them from danger of being exposed to treatment by untrained person/quacks. He further submits that it was made clear to the petitioners at the time of undertaking Paramedical training course that such course will not entitle them to Govt. service. He further submits that in the past, the Govt. has already rejected the proposal for equivalence vide its letter dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure R-2). His further submission is that unless and until the rules are amended, to include Paramedical training course also for the purpose of eligibility for appointment on the post of MPHW, the petitioners cannot claim to be eligible. Learned counsel for the State further argued that equivalence is not prescribed under the rules and, therefore, unless equivalence is prescribed by the experts, petitioners are not entitled to claim nor this Court can draw equivalence in the light of judgments in the case of Delhi Pradesh Registered Medial Practitioners Vs. Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services and Ors.4, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Lata Arun5, and Smt. P. Anasuya Naidu Vs. Union of India & Ors.6. Further submission of learned counsel for the '2001 AIRSCW 4128 2 2000 2 AWC 1216 32011(II)MPJR97 4(1997)11SCC687 52002 AIR SCW 2966 62002 (2) CGLJ 286. ^-^ ^ "'S^ "^ ^' i \ -10- State is that as far as relaxation is concerned, it was only "one time measure" exercise. The Director had issued an advertisement earlier on 13.12.2010 to undertake the process of selection for the post of MPHW(M) In those circumstances, in view of one time relaxation, in all the districts. qualification of Paramedical Training Course was permitted. However, in thereafter, the selection process was given up in the following year, respective districts, the process of selection was initiated by the Appointing the Authority i.e. the Chief Medical and Health Officer. Therefore, relaxation, if any given earlier, did not remain alive or in force, because of limited life of relaxation i.e. "one time measure". He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled to draw equivalence on the basis of advertisement earlier issued vide Annexure P-23, because at that time, the approach was to make stop gap arrangements by making contract appointment. However, when regular the is to be made, recruitment qualification prescribed in the rules are required to be strictly adhered to. He further submits that in so far as prescription of 12th pass in 10 +2 or 11th in old pattern as minimum educational qualification is concerned, in most of the districts, the qualification prescribed under the rules as amended in 1997 alone has been prescribed, though in some of the districts, higher qualifications have been prescribed. But the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on that count because they are otherwise not possessed of prescribed one year training course of MPHW. He further submits that registration with the Paramedical Council of the State is not, by itself, a measure of equivalence of the two courses. 9. I have considered the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. A perusal of advertisement issued by the respective Chief Medical and in all advertisements, Health Officers in various districts shows that prescribed one year training course of MPHW has been specified as one the petitioners in these writ petitions of the essential qualifications. All admittedly are not possessed of prescribed one year training certificate of MPHW. However, the training course of the petitioners' claim is that Paramedical imparted to the petitioners should be treated as equivalent to prescribed one year training course of MPHW. in order to appreciate the ^ \. <2j?^. -11- submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, it is necessary to examine the essential qualifications prescribed under the governing rules regulating recruitment to the post of MPHW. Rule 8 (ii) of the Rules of 1989 provides that a candidate must posses educational qualification prescribed for the service as shown in Schedule III. Under proviso (a) & (b), exceptions have been laid down. At Sr. No.1 (A) of Schedule- 3 appended to the rules of 1989, prior to amendment, essential qualification for appointment to the post of MPHW were provided as below "1. Should have passed Higher Secondary Examination/12th class examination 10+2 education system (with Physics, Chemistry and Biology) 2. Should have passed prescribed 1 year training course of Multipurpose Male Worker." The rules were, however, amended in the year 1997 vide notification dated 18th of June, 1997 (Annexure P-8) and in place of Sr. No.1 against Sr. No.1 A, in column (5 ) and entries relating thereto, it was prescribed that the candidate should have passed 10th Class examination in 10 +2 education system with further stipulation that candidates who have passed 10th class examination with Maths, science and Biology shall be preferred. Therefore, after the amendment also, the essential qualification that the candidates should have passed prescribed one year training course of MPhlW continued to exist. Thus, it is clear that under the rules, a candidate, in order to be eligible for appointment to the post of MPHW (M), should have passed prescribed training course of MPHW. The aforesaid rules, in terms, does not provide for any equivalent training course for the purpose of eligibility. Therefore, unless a candidate is possessed of one year training course of MPHW, he cannot be said to be possessed of essential qualification. None of the petitioners, admittedly, are possessed of one year MPHW training course. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be qualified under rules. 11. l would now proceed to examine other submission as to whether an equivalence has been actually drawn by the competent authority. In order ~w < -12- to buttresssubmission in this regard, reference has been made to contents of profarma of application for registration under Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council, placed on record as Annexure P-6. The contents of the said document lays down the instructions with regard to submission of application for registration with the Council. In clause (10) of the instructions, it has been stated that training under the Paramedical courses conducted in the year 2002, 2003 and 2004, the syllabus prescribed for MPHW was followed and training was accordingly given. This prescription of Registrar of Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council perhaps could be a inclusion of qualification of material Paramedical course for the purposes of grant of eligibility. But as long as it that by itself cannot be a basis to hold that equivalence is not done, the experts to consider for between Paramedical course and MPhlW course has been drawn by the Rule Making Authority. 12. Heavy reliance has been placed on the advertisement dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P-9) to substantiate that two courses have been treated as equivalent. It has to be noted that the said advertisement clearly stated that the essential qualifications have been prescribed in the light of one time relaxation granted by the State Govt. vide its letter dated 28th August, 2010. It is, therefore, obvious that holders of Paramedical training course certificate were treated eligible only under one time relaxation criteria. Therefore, such prescription of qualification for appointment to the post of MPHW (M) in the advertisement dated 13.12.2010(Annexure P-9) only indicates relaxation but not equivalence drawn either by the State Govt. or Rule Making Authority i.e. the Governor. Therefore, the submission that an equivalence has already been drawn, cannot be accepted. It is extremely relevant to note that earlier the State Govt. rejected the proposal to treat Paramedical trained candidates eligible for appointment to the post of MPHW(M) on the ground that there is no such provision in the recruitment rules, evident from memo dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure R-2). Moreover, the petitioners could not place on record any order either of the State Govt. or of the Rule Making Authority which shows that equivalence was actually drawn under which both the courses were treated as equivalent for appointment to the post of MPHW. the purpose of eligibility in the matter of In fact it is the case of the petitioners ,rl:--A: -13- @, only that the Director itself recommended to the State Govt. for providing equivalence as informed to petitioners association vide letter dated rule, 8.9.2011 (Annexure P-15), But before amendment the in advertisements were issued in respective districts. 13. Heavy reliance has been placed on the advertisement (Annexure P-23) it was only intended to be a stop gap for arrangements by making appointments on contract basis and not also. However on the face of it, regular appointment on the post of MPHW (M) under the rules. The State has clearly come out by stating that for the limited purpose of making stop gap arrangement, Paramedical training was recognized. 14. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that even if it is accepted that the aforesaid circumstances, documents, advertisement are not accepted as proof of equivalence drawn by the State, they are, to draw equivalence of nevertheless, extremely material and relevant qualifications. In this regard, there are two additional submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners at the bar. One is that the syllabus of one year Paramedical course and the syllabus prescribed for one year training course of MPHW is identical. For this purpose, learned counsel for the Registrar, the petitioners referred to observation, statement of Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council/Community Midwifery certificate course, Raipur (Annexure P-13).Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before this Court during the course of arguments, the syllabus, though it was not filed. By.referring to aforesaid material, it was vociferously argued that a clear case of drawing equivalence of two qualification is made out. Therefore, this Court should declare equivalence of two courses. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not within the scope ofjudicial review to draw equivalence of qualification. Drawing of equivalence of qualifications of technical nature is essentially the job of experts of the field to enter into the arena of comparing two and it is not for the Court qualifications on certain parameters and then to declare equivalence. It is true that there is marked similarity in the two coursesof instructions but it has to be noted that the requirement of rule is a prescribed one year training course of MPHW. The one year training course of MPHW is ,^^^^^ f.€'th: ;V3^ °' l "a ;t^\ - > ^ i ,/ -14- organized and conducted by Chhetriya Swasthya and Parivar Kalyan Prashikshan Kendra, which is evident from certificate (Annexure P-21) filed by the petitioner. The training for one year Paramedical course is imparted in the district hospitals. Therefore, there is a separate agency/training center for imparting training course of MPHW. Therefore, the equivalence if any can be drawn only by the experts of the field and not by this Court. In the case of Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical the Supreme Court rejected the prayer Practitioners (supra), recognizing certain qualifications on the ground that the same remain in the realm of policy decision of other constitutional functionaries and what constitutes proper education and requisite expertise for practitioners in to the proper authority having requisite Indian Medicine must be left knowledge in the subjects. In the case of Lata Arun (supra), the Supreme Court held thus: for "12. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are It is matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority." 16. In yet another decision in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and Ors.7, the aforesaid principles have been reiterated in following words: "15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the court does not have experi;ise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it." 7(2008)3SCC432 (2^, -15- 17. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of In that case also, on principles, it was it was wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of Tariq Islam (supra), is misplaced. held that academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally are. Area of interference by courts would be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had contravened any statutory or binding rule. It was also held that ^ Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion. In that case, on facts, it was found that at the time of giving admission, equivalence was it could not be nullified. The decision? in determined. Therefore, later on, the case'; of Km. Suman Upadhyaya (supra) is also distinguishable on facts, because in that case, a finding was recorded in para-10 of the judgment that the State itself had drawn equivalence. 18. The other submission to persuade this Court to draw equivalence is that one year Paramedical course training imparted to the petitioners has been duly recognized and the petitioners have been registered with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council. The Council has already observed that training has been imparted on the same syllabus as applicable in the matter of training of MPHW. Therefore, such registration itself is proof of equivalence of two training courses. The said contention cannot be accepted because Paramedical Council only provides registration and there is no provision in the act of 2001 under which Council is empowered to declare equivalence of various training courses. The Act of 2001 has been enacted to regulate the practice by Paramedical practitioner and to perform function and exercise powers enumerated under Section 23 thereof. The Schedule appended to the Act enlists as many as 31 categories of Paramedical practitioners. Therefore, is not, by itself, proof of the Council It is for the body of experts to examine all those materials registration under equivalence. and to draw equivalence. 19. The next issue with regard to relaxation is now required to be dealt with. The contention in this regard has been that once the State had relaxed the ^•^^^^ v^ ^-i.;v^ ^' %--,. w '':•• ^ ^ -16- qualification, even if one year Paramedical equivalent, under relaxed criteria, petitioners also became eligible for being appointed as MPHW. To buttress this submission, reliance has been training course is not placed on the State Govt's order dated 28th August, 2010 (Annexure P-12). 20. A perusal of aforesaid order shows that the State Govt., as a one time relaxation, provided that the candidates who have passed Paramedical certificated course and registered with Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council would also be eligible. It has to be noted that this relaxation was granted by the State only once which is very clear from the order itself. Therefore, .^. what is ctear is that the State relaxed criteria only once. This, on rational and logical interpretation, would only mean that in the matter of appointment to the post of MPHW (M), relaxation would be allowed only the Director Health once. in dispute that after this relaxation, is not It Services had issued an advertisement on 13.10.2012 (Annexure P-9). The advertisement clearly referred to State Govt. order dated 28th August, 2010 and in that light, prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of MPHW. However , the selection under that advertisement could not be made. It is on record that the said advertisement was under challenge in various proceedings before this Court and stay was also granted. Later on, the process of selection itself was cancelled and a notice of cancellation of the process of selection was also published in the newspaper, evident from Press Release (Annexure P-11). Thereafter, no proceedings were drawn for selection in that year by the Director Health Services. In the year 2012, the Chief Medical and Health Officer of respective districts in the State initiated the process of recruitment for appointment to the post of MPHW under the impugned advertisements. It would thus be clear that earlier an attempt was made to fill up the post by issuing advertisement under one time relaxed criteria. Thus, the relaxation which was granted came to an end. It has to be noted that the rider of one time relaxation limits the life of relaxation. If it were to be accepted that such relaxation would be applicable every time when process of selection is initiated, the word "one time" will virtually loose its efficacy. The State Govt. perhaps in circumstances which were prevailing at that point of time, thought for some reasons, the criteria may be relaxed only once. However, when that •K? ^ ^w^^^ tS^.. ti 1 ^ ^lf) -17- appointments were not made under the relaxed criteria, under the advertisement (Annexure P-9) for any reason whatsoever, the relaxation could not continue any further. Therefore, when in the year 2012 impugned advertisement were issued by Chief Medical and Health Officer of different districts, the relaxation of 2010 was no longer available. There is no material brought on record that the State or the Director issued any such directives to Chief Medical and Health Officer of different districts that the relaxation will again be available and continue till all the posts are filled up under one or more than one selection process in times to come. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanjay Singh Baghel (supra). The facts of that case were entirely different. That was not a case of relaxation at all. The effect of amendment in the recruitment rules and new eligibility criteria on the right of those who had already participated in the issuance of process of selection under existing rules on the date of advertisement was under consideration. Present is not a case where the petitioners were eligible under advertisement, but later on, by change or amendment in the rules they the time of the rules at issuance of have been disqualified. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that in Raipur, Surajpur, Ambikapur, Baikuntpur and Bilaspur districts, admittedly, the qualification prescribed is contrary to the provision of the rules as amended in the year the instance of the 1997. I am not the other essential inclined to go into that aspect at petitioners who are otherwise not possessed of qualification of prescribing one year training course of a MPHW. None of the petitioners in these cases are those who are possessed of such qualification of one year training course of MPHW so as to say that because of prescription of 12th /11th class pass examination, they have been deprived of due consideration. Even if the qualifications prescribed would have been 10th pass in 10 +2 system, these petitioners were not eligible and qualified for want of prescribed one year training course of MPHW. Therefore, at the instance of the petitioners in these cases, 1 am not inclined to interfere with the process of selection or the appointments which have already been made by the respondents in those districts, ^. Praveen -18- @; during the pendency of these petitions. For that reason, other allegations of granting preferences under advertisement issued by Chief Medial and hlealth Officer, Mahasamund also need not to be examined at the instance of these petitioners. Further the submission that the prescription of criteria from of being possessed of one year training course of MPHW (M) institution recognized by the State Govt. is arbitrary because there are no such recognized institution, is without proper pleadings in this regard. In any case, the certificate (Annexure P-21) was filed by the petitioner itself the MPHW training courses are conducted by Chetriya shows that Swasthya and Pariwar Kalyan Prashikshan Kendra. 22. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the matter of recruitment on the post of Head Constable (Nursing) Department, qualification of Paramedical course training course is being recognized is of no help because in so far as appointment to the post of MPHW (M) is concerned, the statutory qualification is entirely different. in the Police 23. In the result, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge