Civil Writ Petition No. 20484 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20484 of 2008 Date of decision:- 23.8.2011 Dr. Harsh Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd. Umair, DAG Punjab. Mr. Divjyot S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. RITU BAHRI J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and for quashing of endorsement made by the respondents on the form of the petitioner (Annexure P-14) whereby he had applied for the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer on contractual basis in pursuance to advertisement dated 21.8.2008. As per advertisement 112 posts were to be filled up and there were 56 posts for the General category. Another advertisement was issued for conducting written test of all the eligible candidates on 09.11.2008. The petitioner belongs to General category. The essential qualifications as per the advertisement are as under :- “1. should possess a degree in Homeopathy from any of the institutions mentioned in the second schedule and third schedule of Homeopathic Central Council Act, Civil Writ Petition No. 20484 of 2008 -2- 1973 (Central Act No.59 of 1973), and 2. should have been enrolled on a State register or the Central register of Homeopathy. 3. Punjabi upto matric standard. 4. age limit upto 60 years as on 01.08.2008.” The petitioner has acquired a decree from Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot which is duly mentioned in the second schedule of the Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 (Annexure P-10). List of successful candidates was released on 25.11.2008. The petitioner had secured 82.5 marks and placed at serial No.44. The petitioner appeared for counselling and filled up the form giving details of the marks secured by him. The petitioner has mentioned his marks in the first year of BHMS (Graded degree) in column No.1 as 393 out of 600 and in column No.2 marks of second year of BHMS (Graded degree) as 913 out of 1400. The total marks as 1306 out of 2000 with the percentage as 65.3%. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Scrutiny Committee has directed the petitioner to enter the marks of all three provisional examinations of BHMS. After doing so the percentage came down to 57.89%. The petitioner did not come in the merit and was not selected. In the written statement filed on 19.2.2009 by the respondents the petitioner has been treated to be not eligible as per his merit. The marks, which have been calculated by clubbing the marks obtained by him in DHMS and BHMS (Graded degree) are justified as per the criteria (Annexures R-1 and R-6). The syllabus for the written test was the same as for BHMS examination which was approved by the competent authority on 15.9.2008 (Annexure R-3). The contention of the petitioner that the syllabus was out of course is misplaced. These instructions had been conveyed to C-DAC for displaying it on their website vide letter No.2H.Pb.2008/4821 dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure R-5) after Civil Writ Petition No. 20484 of 2008 -3- following the above procedure the written test of one hour duration was held. The allegation in the petition that one Dr. Lovinder Sharma has been selected by not adding her marks of diploma with degree has been denied. In the written statement it is denied that Dr. Lovinder Sharma who was diploma holder, has been interviewed and selected. As per the criteria for appointment of Homoeopathic Medical Officers (Annexure R-1) percentage of marks in DHMS and BHMS was to be taken as per clarification (Annexure R-VI/T) dated 10.12.2008. It has been mentioned that candidates, who have passed DHMS of 3-½ years are not to be included in the qualification. The candidates, who have passed the Graded degree after passing 3-½ years diploma, their percentage of marks has to be calculated by including marks of diploma and graded degree. Hence, while scrutinizing the papers of the petitioner, it was found that the percentage of 65.3% was made out while calculating two years marks in the BHMS graded degree. While adding the percentage of diploma and graded degree together it came to 57.8%. There is nothing wrong in making calculations as prescribed vide clarification dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure R-VI/T) the petitioner has no right to be selected only on the basis of graded degree marks for the first year and second year. The object of adding marks of diploma with graded degree is that the admission was taken in the graded degree course after completing 3-½ years diploma course. For the correct assessment they were required to add their marks of diploma with two years degree course. Marks of all the selected candidates have been considered as per (Annexure R- VI/T). No ground to interfere is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. 23.8.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE