CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4084 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4084 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12 , 2010 Dalip Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is suffering from disability and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He is physically handicapped and has placed on record certificate (Annexure P-5) as evidence in this regard. He has filed this petition to seek appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), which was advertised by the State on 6.5.2006. He has passed matriculation examination and also 10+2. The petitioner possesses a diploma certificate in Health Sanitary Inspector, which he did in the year 2004-05. Initially, the petitioner had approached this Court CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4084 of 2009 -2- when no reservation was made for physically handicapped category. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities. The representation was filed on behalf of the petitioner, which ultimately led to issuance of a corrigendum on 7.10.2008. Last date for submission of the application was 22.10.2008. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his application form. Still, he was not issued any interview letter. The petitioner ultimately has to file this writ petition with the grievance that he was not being called for interview though he had submitted application. While issuing notice, directions were issued to provisionally interview the petitioner and keep his result in a sealed cover. Subsequently, the result of the interview was also disclosed before the Court and it was noticed that the petitioner had scored more marks than the last selected candidate in the category of physically handicapped. In the reply, however, the claim of the petitioner for appointment is contested. After making reference to the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, it is stated that the petitioner has completed the course of Health Sanitary Inspector from National Industrial Training Centre, Sewak Park, New Delhi, whereas the advertised qualification is Multipurpose Health Workers Training Course from an institution approved by the Government. It is, accordingly, stated that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification and as such, he is not eligible for the said post. It is also disclosed that the Director, Health Services (Malaria) vide letter dated 14.4.2009 (Anneuxre R -2/1), has informed the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4084 of 2009 -3- names of the institutions, which are recognized by the Haryana Government, for the purpose of Multipurpose Health Worker and the name of the National Industrial Training Centre, Sewak Park, New Delhi, is not included. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner is contested. Counsel for the parties were asked to make submission whether the diploma possessed by the petitioner would be a higher qualification considered to the eligibility qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. The counsel for the petitioner maintains the stand that the petitioner is possessing a higher qualification and as such could not have been held ineligible for consideration. Mr. Rathee, however, disputes this fact that the petitioner is having higher qualification. In order to ascertain whether post of Sanitary Health Inspector would be a promotional post for Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), the Rules have been perused. The post of Sanitary Inspector has now been reconstructed and renamed as Multipurpose Health Supervisor and is a promotional post for Multipurpose Health Worker. Accordingly, the diploma possessed by the petitioner, cannot be considered to be something, which is not relevant for the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). The objection of the State also appears to be that the petitioner has passed this diploma course from an institution, which is not recognized by the Haryana Government. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the case of Manoj Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana & others, 2007 (2) RSJ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4084 of 2009 -4- 23. In this case, the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the petitioner, who was possessing diploma from a deemed University, which is recognized by the University Grants Commission, then the respondent-State or any of its agencies cannot be permitted to not to recognize such degree or diploma. This Court has further observed that such a course would be repugnant to the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. This was also a case where the Court was dealing with the diploma possessed for the Multipurpose Health Worker. The petitioner therein also scored more marks than the last selected candidate and accordingly, directions were issued to appoint him as a Multipurpose Health Worker with effect from the date other candidate belonging to his category was so appointed. The ratio of law laid down in this judgment appears to be directly attracted to the facts in the present case. In Manoj Kumar's case (supra) also the diploma possessed by the petitioner therein was not recognized on the ground that the institution from which he had passed the diploma is not recognized by the state. As held by this Court, if the institution is recognized by the University Grants Commission, then it may not be appropriate for the State to urge that the said institution is not one of the recognized institution. In this view of the above position of law, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Manoj Kumar's case(supra) and if the respondents find that the institution from which the petitioner had obtained his diploma is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4084 of 2009 -5- recognized by the University Grants Commission, then the respondents may consider if this diploma passed by the petitioner is to be considered relevant for the purpose of appointment. Let the appropriate order in accordance with law be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The necessary consequences would follow. The petitioner would be at liberty to take any appropriate proceeding in accordance with law, in case of any adverse order is passed against him. November 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE