IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.4255 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 17, 2011. Jaspreet Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Punjab & ors .....Respondents --- Civl Writ Petition No.18955 of 2008 Harjinder Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents --- Civl Writ Petition No.20069 of 2008 Ravinder Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, Mr.Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate, and Ms.Sonia G.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Gurjinder Singh Chahal, Advocate, for Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 24 (in CWP No.4255 of 2009) -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.18955 & 20069 of 2008 and 4255 of 2009 as the issues involved in these writ petitions are common in nature. CWP No.4255 of 2009 etc. [2] [2] For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.4255 of 2009. [3] The petitioners impugn the selection of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Female) made pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.8.2008 (Annexure P-17) under the Central Government Scheme, 2211. [4] The precise grievance of the petitioners is that the criteria for selection contained in the advertisement dated 24.8.2008 (Annexure P-17) has been deviated and not followed at the time of final selection made on 16.10.2008. [5] In order to determine the controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce the minimum qualification prescribed for the above mentioned posts which reads as follows:- “4. Qualification: Matriculation from any recognized university/10+2 with Science or any other qualification equivalent to this. Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker (Female)/ ANM from any recognized University or Institution. Registration as Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) ANM from the Punjab Nurses Registration Council. Passed Punjabi subject upto matric standard.....” [6] The petitioner as well as the selected candidates admittedly possess the above stated qualification. However, in clause-6 of the advertisement which pertains to the “Method of Recruitment”, it was laid down that:- “The selection will be made on the basis of sub center and preference will be given to that ANM who belongs to said village which falls in the area of sub centre. If no suitable CWP No.4255 of 2009 etc. [3] candidate founds from the sub centre then the other ANMs from the adjacent sub centre and from the Block PHC and other sub centre can be considered accordingly. The recruitment of ANM from other district will not be considered. Candidates will be selected on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the qualified examination and in diploma examination of ANM/MPHW (Female). The candidates will fill up required norms of domicile i.e., their village, sub centre and PHC Block....” [7] The short grievance of the petitioners is that no marks have been allocated for the “qualified examination” at the time of final selection and the merit list has been prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in the “Diploma Examination” and the “experience”. The above stated plea has been substantiated on the basis of the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-18 and the relevant part thereof reads as follows:- “Criteria for selection: For the selection of the candidates, the criteria of district merit will be followed, district wise merit will be prepared and a preference of sub-centre as per merit may be given. Criteria Marks obtained by candidate Total 105 marks %age of marks obtained in the diploma of ANM/ Multipurpose Health Worker. Actual % age Max.100 marks Experience (relevant experience of) 1 mark for 2 years of experience Max.5 marks. CWP No.4255 of 2009 etc. [4] [8] The respondents have filed the reply-affidavit maintaining that the petitioners have been duly considered on merits but they failed to secure the merit position higher than the last selected candidate. They have further explained that the criteria for selection was laid down on 3.10.2008 (Annexure R-1) before the selection was made on 16.8.2008 and it reads as follows:- “Criteria for selection: For the selection of the candidates, the criteria of district merit will be followed, district wise merit will be prepared and a preference of Sub-Centre as per merit may be given. Criteria Marks obtained by candidate Total 105 marks %age of marks obtained in the diploma of ANM/ Multipurpose Health Worker. Actual % age Max.100 marks Experience (relevant experience of) 1 mark for 2 years of experience Max.5 marks. List I *Consisting of candidates belonging to same district (domicile of the same district) will be prepared. List II *Consisting of candidates of another district will be prepared and operated only in the case, if candidates are not available from the same district....” [9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. [10] The ancillary issue to be determined therefore would be “as to whether the competent authority is well within its right to modify the selection criteria after issuance of the advertisement Annexure P-17 and if CWP No.4255 of 2009 etc. [5] so, whether the criteria followed by it is per se arbitrary warranting interference by this Court?”. [11] There is indeed no quarrel that recruitment to the posts of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Female) is not regulating by any statutory service rules. The selection was for contractual appointments and under a Scheme framed by the Government of India. The advertisement did mention that the candidates will be selected on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the “Qualified Examination” and in “Diploma Examination of ANM/MPHW (Female)”. However, the expression “qualified examination” cannot be construed to mean 10+2 examination only. It would be seen from the advertisement that while Diploma in Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) or Diploma in ANM from a recognized University etc. were the only uniformly prescribed professional or skilled qualifications required to be possessed by the candidates. The basic qualification, however could be at variance, i.e., matriculation or 10+2. In other words, a matriculate candidate having Diploma in Multi Purpose Health Worker was also eligible like a candidate with 10+2 and Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker. If the petitioners' plea is taken to a logical conclusion, it will bring a matriculate candidate at par with 10+2 candidate. In such a situation, the criteria followed by the respondents giving weightage to the marks obtained by the candidates in the professional/ skilled qualifications, namely, Diploma in ANM or Multipurpose Health Worker alongwith experience (for which the maximum marks are only 5 out of 100), is fairer than what the petitioners contend and it ensured the CWP No.4255 of 2009 etc. [6] selection of better merited candidates. The competent authority having taken a conscious decision to follow the modified criteria uniformly before concluding the selection process, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to mention that the petitioners nowhere allege that a candidate having lower merit in Diploma course has been given preference on pick and choose basis. [12] Dismissed. [13] This order however, shall not preclude the petitioners to approach the authorities to fill up all the advertised posts strictly in accordance with merit and the competent authority shall consider their request keeping in view the larger public interest. [14] Dasti. August 17, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE