IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.17246 of 2010 Date of decision : 20.12.2011 Anil Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners pray that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the result dated 8.9.2010 and 5.5.2006 (Annexure P4 & P-11, respectively), in which the petitioners' institute was not mentioned as one of those recognized institutions for being considered for employment to the post of Laboratory Technician. The petitioners are holders of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi. They plead that this diploma should be considered to be valid for considering them to the post of Laboratory C.W.P.No.17246 of 2010 -2- Technician. The petitioners had pleaded that non-consideration of this diploma is erroneous and that the respondents have wrongly excluded it. The petitioners have referred to the rules to show that the qualification required is “Laboratory Technician Diploma from recognized institution” and since the diploma conducted by the institute from which they have acquired is recognized in Delhi and also by Central and several State Governments and Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, there is no occasion for the respondents to decline consideration to them on this ground. It has been stated before this Court that the rules have now been amended in the year 2008 and new qualifications have been substituted ostensibly with a view to obviate the confusion that has been created regarding the recognition of a diploma by a particular institute. The respondents denied the claim of the petitioners to state that such a diploma is not recognized by the State of Haryana and consequently the petitioners cannot dictate to them that the institution from which they have obtained the diploma should be included in the list of recognized institutions as has been detailed in Annexure P-11. That apart, they have contended that the petitioners were actually considered at the time of interview but still they did not make the grade and their merit was far less from the candidates who have been selected. The tabulated chart of the selected candidates as also of the petitioners is as under :- C.W.P.No.17246 of 2010 -3- S.No. Name/Roll No.of the petitioner Cat. Marks obtained by the petitioner Marks of the last selected candidate in petitioner category 1 Anil Kumar, Roll No.2083 DESM (Gen) 35.13 42.98 2 Shri Bhagwan, Roll No.1747 SC 37.00 43.79 3 Jagesh Singh, Roll No.899 DESM (Gen) 35.63 42.98 4 Ram Phal Singh, Roll No.680 DESM (Gen) 40.58 -do- 5 Ramesh Kumar, Roll No.2332 PHC (Ortho) 38.51 43.66 6 Mohan Sharma, Roll No.2192 Gen. 39.15 46.49 On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the stand of the petitioners is unjust. They cannot dictate to the respondents that a particular institution from which they have acquired a diploma should be included in the list of recognized institutions. It is the prerogative of the employer to consider which institution is to be accepted by them and which is to be excluded. Because the rules mention that the diploma has to be from a recognized institute would imply that recognition has to be from the institution which the employer acknowledges and not the institutions which are recognized by certain other bodies. Besides even if the best case of the petitioners is considered and their qualifications acknowledged then also the petitioners do not fare any better in merit, and are short of the marks as compared to the selected candidates as is evident from the tabulated data above. C.W.P.No.17246 of 2010 -4- No merit. Dismissed. 20.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss