CWP No. 21815 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21815 of 2008 Date of decision : 25.07.2011 Dr. Kamalinder Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate wit Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, quo warranto for quashing the selection/appointment of Dr. Sanjiv Kumar Goel as Assistant Professor respondent No. 3 in the department of Ophthalmology, Medical College, Amritsar. The petitioner has passed her MBBS course in the year 1990 securing first position in the University. She completed her masters in Ophthalmology during academic year 1991-1994. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 remained an average student through out his academic carrier as compared to the petitioner. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala issued advertisement No. 2 dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-4) inviting applications for CWP No. 21815 of 2008 -2- the post of Assistant Professor Ophthalmology (later on re-designated as Senior Lecturer). In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner along with 11 other candidates including respondent No. 3 applied for the said post. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 held the interview for the post of Assistant Professor Ophthalmology on 11.09.2008. The result of the said interview was declared on 13.09.2008 (Annexure P-1). In the final list, respondent No. 3 was placed at Sr. No. 1 and he is shown to have secured 61.80% marks and whereas the petitioner (Roll No. 55) was shown to have secured 59.36% marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the advertisement (annexure P-4) whereby only one post of Senior Lecturer (now re-designated as Assistant Professor) has been advertised. Apart from the essential qualification, there was requirement of teaching experience of 3 years in the particular specialty as Lecturer, Registrar, Research Assistant or Senior Resident in a teaching institution. There were some more requirements which is as under:- “Note:- Experience upto the extent of one year in obstetrics and Gynecology, E.N.T and Ophthalmology, and in the basic subjects of Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacology, Pathology and Microbiology would be countable for the post of Senior Lecturer now re-designated as Assistant Professor in the Surgery and its specialties. Similarly benefit of experience upto the extent of one year in the basic subjects of Pathology, Microbiology, Anatomy, Pharmacology and Physiology would be countable for the posts in the specialty of general Medicine. However, experience in the allied subjects as Registrar or Demonstrator would be given preference over experience in the same subject as Assistant Registrar Assistant Demonstrator and the experience in the latter would be counted as half of teaching experience in the former. Teaching experience as Assistant Registrar.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. CWP No. 21815 of 2008 -3- 3 does not have the requisite masters degree in Ophthalmology. He has referred to the letter No.9156 dated 30.06.2004 issued by the Medical Council of India, who did not approve the Post Graduation in M.S. Ophthalmology in the Guru Gobind Medical College Faridkot. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below:- “The Post Graduated Committee considered the compliance verification report (March 2004) together with compliance and Council Inspectors report (October 2001) and decided to reiterate its earlier decision taken at its meeting held on 16th and 17th September, 2002 recommending not to approve Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot for the award of M.S. (Ophthalmology) qualification granted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot because the department of Ophthalmology is not headed by a Professor.” Thereafter, the Medical Council of India was requested to supply the requisite information under the RTI Act but the Medical Council failed to do so. As per the information available on the Internet (Annexure P-6) shows that the degree in Ophthalmology in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College was recognized w.e.f 12.10.2004. Therefore, respondent No. 3 has unapproved degree in M.S. Ophthalmology. Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr.Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another objection on the candidature of respondent No. 3 that he was never appointed as Registrar in the College so as to enable him to get 3 years experience as contemplated in the advertisement (Annexure P-4). He has referred to instructions dated 23.11.1990 (Annexure P-7) whereby the Government had introduced the Residency System in all the Medical colleges in the State, therefore, respondent NO. 3 could not be appointed as Registrar and CWP No. 21815 of 2008 -4- gain any experience on the said post. He remained as a student of P.G. Course period from 16.04.2001 to 31.05.2004, so, respondent NO. 3 could not continue acting as the Registrar and the student of P.G. Course at the same time. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has referred to Annexure R-1/2 dated 05.01.2001 whereby the Registrar posted at Govt. Medical College, Faridkot shall be allowed to do P.G at G.G.S Medical College Faridkot in the subject in which they are doing Registrarship subject to getting their admission on P.G.E.T basis and seat being available at G.G.S Medical College Faridkot in the concerned specialty/Course. However, if they get admission at other college they will have to get revised to General cadre before admission. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has further submitted that the qualification of Post Graduate Degree Course i.e M.S. (Ophthalmology) possessed by respondent No. 3 is valid and duly recognized post graduate degree by the State of Punjab as well as by the Medical Council of India, New Delhi. He has further stated that the Punjab Medical Council Chandigarh has accepted this P.G. Degree and has registered the respondent No. 3 as P.G. Degree Holder (Annexure R-3/3). He has further referred to Annexure R-3/4 vide which the Medical Council has also recognized the Masters in Ophthalmology. So, the degree of respondent No. 3 in January, 2004 is valid for all intents and purposes. The recommendation is given by taking into account the verification inspection report of March, 2004 and October, 2001. Respondent NO. 3 has passed his M.B.B.S degree in the year 1992 and during his degree course he got many certificate of merits in various extra co-curricular CWP No. 21815 of 2008 -5- events held at the College level as well as the National Level. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per the criteria adopted by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the selection of Senior Lecturer (now re-designated as Assistant Professor) Ophthalmology is as follows:- (a) Thirty five marks were allocated for the basic qualifications. (b) Three marks were allocated, additionally, for higher qualifications (c) Five marks were allocated additionally for job experience ranging from 4 years to 12 years. (d) Seven marks were allocated for publications. (e) Therefore a total of 50 marks out of a total of 100 marks were allocated for academic qualifications and other abilities (f) Only fifty marks were allocated for the interview. The interview board was consisting of one specialist besides other members. It is not in dispute that the marks allocated to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 on the basis of their academic qualifications have been rightly assigned. It is also admitted by the respondents that respondent NO. 3 was at Sr. No. 1 having secured 61.80% marks whereas the petitioner was at Sr. No. 2 having secured 59.3% marks. The argument of the petitioner that the degree of respondent No. 3 is not valid carries no weight as the post graduate degree was duly recognized by the State of Punjab as well as by the Medical Council of India, New Delhi. The Medical Council of India has given its due recognition on 07.01.2005 (Annexure R-3/4). This Court has no hesitation to hold that the degree of respondent No. 3 is a valid degree. As far as the experience of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is clear from Annexure R-3/6 that respondent No. 3 has a valid certificate of experience, issued by Joint Director, Research and Medical CWP No. 21815 of 2008 -6- Education, Punjab on 08.07.2003 stating that he had worked as Registrar, Eye Department at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College Faridkot from 26.08.1999 to 25.08.2002. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 fulfills all the conditions required for the post of Senior Lecturer (now re-designated as Assistant Professor) Ophthalmology. The criteria adopted by the Punjab Public Service Commission has been duly considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmad vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1994, SC 141 wherein the Government in its letter to Public Service Commission had stated that selection be made on the basis of interview. The Commissioner as per its past practice made in selections by allocating 50% marks for academic performance and 50% for interview. Procedure was held to not arbitrary. The selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 is held to be valid and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. July 25, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE