Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 20, 2011 Gurmeet Kaur .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.Rana Partap Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The petitioner laid challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Pharmacist in Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'GMCH') in terms of filing OA No.379 of 2009 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT'). CAT having dismissed the OA vide order dated 21.7.2011, the petitioner is before us in the present writ petition. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. On 13.11.2008, an advertisement was issued by the GMCH inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including a solitary post of Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220. The relevant extract Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 2 of the advertisement is re-produced hereunder: “PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS GOVT.MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, SECTOR-32,CHANDIGARH Applications are invited for recruitment against the under noted temporary posts, from the eligible candidates having qualifications and experience as mentioned against each post on regular basis, except the posts of Staff Nurses & Jr. Physiotherapist (on contract basis) in the format given below:- Sr. No. Name of the post & pay scale No of vacant posts Essential Qualification/Experience GEN SC OBC Ex- Servic eman Total 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 Pharmacist Rs.4550- 7220 1 1 Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized institution after 10+2/its equivalent from a recognized University/Board. OR Bachelor's Degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences, B.Pharmacy from a recognized University/Institution should be registered with the Pharmacy Council of India under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Desirable: Knowledge of computer. Note: Weightage will be given to candidates having higher qualifications, experience attached with the post, knowledge of computer and extra curricular activities.” 3. The criteria for selection for the post of Pharmacist has also been disclosed to the petitioner in response to a query under the provisions Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 3 of the Right to Information Act and the same may also be conveniently re- produced as follows: “Criteria for the selection for the post of Pharmacist. Pharmacist (i) Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized institution after 10+2/its equivalent from a recognized University/Board OR Bachelor's Degree in Pharmaceutical sciences, B. Pharmacy from a recognized University/Institution. Should be registered with Pharmacy Council of India under Pharmacy Act, 1948. 30 Basic educational qualifications prescribed in the RRS: 30 (to be given on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the respective educational qualifications (e.g. Percentage of marks obtained in prescribed educational qualification : 55, weight age 55 x 30/100 : 16.5). Higher Education Qualification 4 (1st Division) 04 (2nd Division) 03 (3rd division) 02 Working Experience 4 Experience over and above prescribed in the RRs. : 1 marks for each year 0.5 for not less than six months Computer Knowledge 2 Minimum Six months diploma Interview 10 Knowledge of subject – 03 General Awareness - 03 Personality - 02 Aptitude - 02 Sd/-” 4. A written test was held on 25.7.2009 wherein the petitioner has claimed to have got 50 marks and respondent No.3 has got 48 marks. Thereafter, an interview was held in the Office of the Director Principal, GMCH on 20.8.2009. Six candidates were called for the interview and in pursuance thereto, respondent No.3 was selected and appointed to the post Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 4 of Pharmacist on 14.11.2009. 5. Shri Rana Partap Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised submissions to challenge the selection and appointment of the private respondent by taking the plea that the petitioner was more qualified, she had secured more marks in the written examination, and further more, due weightage had not been given for her knowledge in computers and also for the working experience that she possessed. 7. A few undisputed facts that would emerge from the pleadings are that a written test was held on 25.7.2009 in which 51 candidates appeared. Such test was held solely with the objective of shortlisting candidates for purposes of interview for selection to the post of Pharmacist. Undoubtedly, the petitioner secured 50 marks as opposed to respondent No.3 who secured 48 marks. Be that as it may, the marks secured in such written test meant for shortlisting were not to count for determination of final merit towards selection and appointment to the post. Six candidates were accordingly shortlisted and called for the interview including the petitioner and the private respondent. The selection has been done on the basis of educational qualification possessed and upon performance in the interview. The petitioner has been awarded 2 marks out of 10 in the interview, whereas the private respondent has been awarded 8 marks. As regards computer knowledge is concerned, in terms of the selection criteria, maximum of 2 marks were to be given to a candidate only if a candidate possesses minimum six months' diploma in computers. The petitioner admittedly possesses a three months' computer course certificate and, Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 5 therefore, no weightage towards computer knowledge was given to her. Likewise, no marks have been given even to the private respondent towards computer knowledge. So far as the work experience is concerned, in terms of the selection criteria, a minimum of six months' working experience was required and for that, 0.5 marks were to be awarded and one mark for each completed year of working experience thereafter. Both, the petitioner as well as the private respondent did not possess the requisite working experience and have not been awarded any marks towards such parameters. As regards weightage for higher educational qualification is concerned, both, the petitioner and the private respondent have been awarded due weightage. 8. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case that the private respondent was not eligible in terms of the advertisement and the eligibility criteria laid down thereunder. It is not even her case that the criteria of selection has been given a go-by. It is apparent that the petitioner had a right of consideration and the same was afforded to her. She has no indefeasible right to selection and appointment. 9. We cannot be called upon to act as a court of appeal to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates and to substitute our own recommendations as opposed to the recommendations of a validly constituted Selection Committee. The conditions of eligibility for the purposes of recruitment to the post of Pharmacist were laid down. There is no challenge to the same. A criteria of selection has been disclosed and the same has been applied across the board. The private respondent was eligible and has been found most meritorious by a validly constituted Selection Committee. Civil Writ Petition No.19628 of 2011 6 10. Under such circumstances, we do not find it to be a fit case that would warrant interference with the impugned order dated 21.7.2011 passed by the CAT in OA No.379 of 2009. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE October 20, 2011 SRM