IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16589 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24.3.2009 Jaswinder Singh & others ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Director Health Services (Family Welfare) vide its advertisement notice published in 'Daily Ajeet', a local Punjabi newspaper in its issue dated 14.4.2008 invited applications for various categories of posts including Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) to fill up the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Castes Majhbi Sikh Balmiki and other Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Castes Ex-service men and Scheduled Castes Sportsmen, Backward Castes Ex-servicemen, Handicapped and Sportsmen. All the petitioners applied for the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). It is alleged that the petitioners have passed their matriculation and possessed the two years diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). The posts are to be filled up on contract basis on monthly wages of Rs.5,000/-. The qualification prescribed for the Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) are as under:- “Qualifications:- 1. Should have passed Matriculation or its equivalent examination from a recognized university or institution along CWP No. 16589 of 2008 -2- with Science. 2. May be possessing Diploma in Multipurpose Health (Male) from a recognized university or institute. 3. Should have passed Punjabi up to Matriculation level.” Clause 4 of the aforesaid notification prescribed the mode for determination of the merit and reads as under:- “ 4. The merit list of the candidates will be prepared on the basis of educational qualifications and the marks obtained in the Diploma.” From the advertisement notice it appears that the merit in the selection has to be determined by taking into consideration the marks in the educational qualification and the marks obtained in the diploma. The candidates were asked to appear for interview for scrutiny of documents etc. The petitioners have not been called for interview. It is alleged that on enquiry the petitioners have come to know that the marks for educational qualifications as also the diploma have been taken into consideration to fill up the posts and thus they have been excluded from the process of consideration. Though, they have better marks in the diploma. It has been strenuously argued by Ms. Alka Chatrath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the earlier advertisement issued in the year 2006 the selection was based only on the basis of the marks in diploma and the educational qualifications were not taken into consideration. The present vacancies are the backlog i.e left over of the said selection, different yardsticks cannot be adopted. A copy of the advertisement dated 1.9.2006 has also been placed on record as Annexure P-7. Vide aforesaid advertisement applications were invited for various posts including the CWP No. 16589 of 2008 -3- Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). From the perusal of the aforesaid advertisement notification it appears that the qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement and in the present advertisement are exactly the same. It appears that in the aforesaid advertisement no mode for making selection was indicated in the advertisement notice. It is seriously contended on behalf of the petitioners that the merit should be determined only on the basis of the diploma marks and not the qualifications i.e. Matriculation or qualifying examination as was done in the earlier selection. Earlier selection is also under challenge in a separate writ petition. The short question that falls for consideration in the present petition is whether the respondents are justified in taking into consideration the marks in the qualifying examination along with the diploma or the marks are to be determined only on the basis of diploma. From the both advertisements it appears that the qualifications laid down for selection are matriculation and the diploma. Both are the essential qualifications for selection to the post in question and thus the condition no.4 imposed in Annexure P-8 that the merit shall be determined on the basis of the qualifying examination and the diploma is in consonance with the laid down qualifications and cannot be faulted with. Once both the qualifications are essential then the one qualification cannot be ignored. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 24.3.2009 lucky