IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18897 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.10.2011 Mohamd Nazir & others ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab & another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) In the instant petition, the petitioners are working as Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). 90 posts of Block Extension Educator in the Department of Punjab Health and Family Welfare were advertised vide advertisement notification dated26.07.2011 (Anneuxre P-4). Under the rules invogue at the time of advertisement, the essential qualifications for the post of Block Extension Educator have been mentioned as under: (i)Should be a graduate from a recognized university or institution; and (ii) Should possess a diploma in Journalism from a recognized university or institution. Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess the diploma in Journalism from the recognized university, which is one of the essential qualification prescribed under Rules. This petition has been filed seeking to challenge the aforesaid rules to the extent the additional qualification of diploma in Journalism has been introduced in 2007 Rules. It is contended that prior to the amendments in 2007 Rules, this qualification was not prescribed and the petitioners were eligible for consideration against the CWP No.18897 of 2011 (O&M) -2- said post. The other contention is that the introduction of the diploma in Journalism has no relation with the post of Block Extension Educator. We have considered the nature of duties and the job profile of the Block Extension Educator as appended with Annexure P-4 and we are convinced that the diploma in Journalism has clear nexus with job of Block Extension Educator which inter alia includes: (i)maintaining laison with media units of other departments, including those of voluntary organisations and organisation of mass communication programmes like film shows, exhibitions, lectures and dramas. (ii)educational, motivational and communication programme in PHC area. (iii)Guide and supervise the field workers in the area of information discrimination, information and motivation. Apart from above, it is the prerogative of the employer to fix the qualifications for any job. The court has no expertise to venture into this area. The employer is best judge for the purpose. The challenge is unsustainable. Learned counsel has further stated that some of the advertised vacancies were available prior to the amendments of Rules and petitioners being eligible , they have right to be considered on the basis of unamended rules and all such vacancies are to be filled up under the old Rules. There is no such averment in the writ petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the question of availability of vacancies prior to the amended rules. While dismissing this petition as withdrawn, we permit CWP No.18897 of 2011 (O&M) -3- learned counsel for the petitioners to file fresh petition on the limited question of availability of vacancies prior to the amendment and their right of consideration against the same. (Permod Kohli) Judge October 05, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge