Rajinder Singh & Anr. v. Jasvir Singh & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for the remaining respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

1. This shall dispose of three petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No.12237 of 2007 titled `Rajinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others’; Civil Writ Petition No.14487 of 2007 titled `Jasvir Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’; and Civil Writ Petition No.5195 of 2007 titled `Neeraj Kumar & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’ as they involve common question of law and facts.

2. For reference to record, paperbook of Civil Writ Petition No.12237 of 2007 titled `Rajinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others’ is taken up.

3. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing selection and CWP No.12237 of 2007 [3] appointments to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) made by respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, in pursuance of advertisement/ public notice dated

1.9.2006 (Annexure P-1).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that vide advertisement dated 1.9.2006, applications were invited for selection and appointment to 656 posts of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). As per the advertisement, the qualification prescribed is Matric with Science from any recognised University or Institution or its equivalent examination and the candidate should have passed Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) from any recognised University or Institution and should have passed Punjabi upto Matric level.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners possess requisite qualification and therefore, applied for the posts.

6. Gist of the contentions on behalf of the petitioners is that the selection criteria adopted by the respondents is contrary to the rules governing the service of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male).

7. Learned counsel contends that there CWP No.12237 of 2007 [4] has been violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been asserted that once the respondents have prescribed the minimum qualification for selection and appointment, the respondents were required to take into account the marks obtained/ secured by the candidates in Matric also. The respondents have not taken into account the marks secured by the petitioners in Matriculation examination.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that there has been no violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At the point in time when the selection was made under Advertisement/ Public Notice, Annexure P-1, no such instructions or rules were in existence mandating the respondents to formulate selection criteria so as to take into account the marks secured in Matric also.

9. Learned counsel contends that considering the nature of service/ work to be taken from a Multipurpose Health Worker, weightage has been given to the marks obtained by the candidates in Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker only. The criteria thus adopted is reasonable. CWP No.12237 of 2007 [5]

10. Learned counsel further asserts that all the candidates were subjected to the same criteria and therefore, there has been no discrimination.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly conceded that indeed all the candidates have been subjected to the same criteria. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any instruction or rule that would indicate that the respondents were required to take into account the marks obtained by the candidates in Matriculation for the purpose of selection. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that in the subsequent selection (s), such instructions were issued whereunder Matriculation marks have also been taken into account.

12. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel.

13. Matriculation is the basic qualification provided as per eligibility criteria. The Advertisement/ Public Notice makes the eligibility criteria evident, however, does not provide for the respondents to take into account the marks obtained by the candidates in Matriculation; Diploma in Multipurpose Health CWP No.12237 of 2007 [6] Worker; as also, in Punjabi at the Matriculation level. The respondents have adopted a criteria for selection while providing for consideration of marks in Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker only.

14. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent-State to the effect that considering the nature of work to be taken from these workers, suitability has been judged only on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker, cannot be said to be without basis. To be appointed to the post, Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) has been provided as the main qualification which relates to the task to be performed by the worker. In such circumstances, in the wisdom of the respondents, suitability has been adjudged on the basis of marks obtained in the Diploma. The criteria adopted cannot be termed as arbitrary, irrational, irrelevant or unreasonable. On the judicial side, unless the criteria adopted is arbitrary and dehors the issue, no interference is called for. The employer ordinarily is the best person/authority to take a decision in such regards. Judicial review of the decision taken by the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is CWP No.12237 of 2007 [7] not called for. Criteria adopted for subsequent selections would have no bearing on the selection made under the advertisement/ Public Notice at issue in this case.

15. Eligibility is different from suitability. The petitioners were eligible for applying for selection to the posts of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). The suitability is to be adjudged by the respondents by formulating a criteria. A criteria has been adopted which admittedly has been applied uniformly. In such circumstances, no interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out violation of any rule or instruction. There has been no discrimination as all have been subjected to same criteria. There has been no violation of provisions of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, it cannot be held that respondents have been arbitrary or unreasonable in conducting selection process.

16. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. August 11, 2010 JUDGE (AJAI LAMBA) CWP No.12237 of 2007 [8] To be referred to the Reporters or not?

1. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?