Ajay Chabbra vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2, in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 26.7.2011 by Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab Parivar Kalyan, is before this court with a prayer that the respondents be directed to conduct his counselling as on the date fixed for counselling he was bed ridden because of accident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being fully qualified applied for the post of Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2 in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 26.7.2011. In the process of selection, written test was conducted on 28.12.2011, in which the petitioner qualified by getting 43.2 out of total 80 marks. The result was declared quite late. Till December, 2013, the petitioner had been enquiring about the same. On 4.1.2014, he met with an accident and was advised 10 days complete bed rest. After the petitioner got well, he checked the status of the result and was surprised to find out that after the result was declared, even the counselling was conducted from 2.1.2014 to 13.1.2014, which the petitioner missed being bed ridden. In the process of counselling, only the documents are checked as there are no marks for interview. The selection is only based on the marks secured in the written test. The persons, who are lower in merit, had been called for counselling. A representation was made even to the Health Minister, who had referred the matter to the department concerned for sympathetic and necessary action.

The submission is that non-appearance of the petitioner on the date of counselling was not intentional, rather, it was beyond the control of the petitioner on one side, whereas even on the part of the authorities also, as the result of the written test was declared quite late, the petitioner could not possibly keep a track thereof on daily basis. He further submitted that for all other selections being made by the State, there is more than one counselling. In the present case as well, the candidates should have been given a second chance. It is not where some Interview Board has to assemble again. Only certificates were to be checked. It was the last chance for the petitioner as thereafter he will become over-age for government job.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that against 390 posts advertised for Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2, 2,362 applications were received. Total 1,425 candidates were called for counselling, out of which 1,236 candidates appeared. It was the duty of the candidate to keep track of the process of selection. The schedule of counselling was from 2.1.2014 to 13.1.2014. All the left over candidates, who missed the counselling on any of the dates earlier, could appear on 14.1.2014. In the representation initially made by the petitioner, there was no mention of his having suffered injuries in the accident. As sufficient number of candidates were available in the first counselling, there was no need to have any further counselling. Second or third counselling is held in cases where sufficient number of candidates are not available. The schedule of counselling was not only mentioned in the advertisement issued for the purpose in the newspaper but also uploaded on the website. Under these circumstances, it would not be feasible for the department to conduct any further counselling for the petitioner, as there may be many candidates like the petitioner who may not have attended counselling for different reasons. The petitioner only cannot be given special treatment. It will re-open the entire process as the counselling will have to be done again. Not only this, the selection is almost at the final stage and this will delay the process.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

In the case in hand, the issue is pertaining to the selection to the post of Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2. The undisputed facts are that the advertisement therefor was issued on 26.7.2011. In the process of selection, written test was to be conducted which was held on 28.12.2011. Thereafter, counselling was to be held in which original certificates of the candidates were to be checked. There were no marks ear-marked for interview. The selection was merely on the basis of marks secured in the written test. The result of written test conducted on 28.12.2011 was declared in December, 2013. The counselling was scheduled from 2.1.2014 to 13.1.2014. As the petitioner could not appear, his candidature was not considered.

Though the grievance raised by the petitioner is that he did not come to know about the schedule of counselling as he met with an accident on 4.1.2014 and was advised bed rest for 10 days, medical certificate issued by General Hospital, Panchkula was also referred to. As per the facts furnished by learned counsel for the State, against 390 posts advertised for Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2, 2,362 applications were received. Total 1,425 candidates were called for counselling, out of which 1,236 candidates appeared.

The difficulty faced by the petitioner or the reason for non-appearance in the counselling is one part. On that basis, the issue could be examined as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition or not, namely, whether a direction is required to be issued to the authorities for conducting counselling of the petitioner on account of the facts pleaded by him. Equally important part is as to whether the process of selection adopted by the authorities is reasonable and whether it had given fair opportunity to all the candidates to appear for counselling or not.

From the facts, as noticed above, I find that the process was not fair, in the sense that though written test was conducted on 28.12.2011, but the result thereof was declared two years thereafter and immediately schedule for counselling was notified. It has been noticed in many cases pertaining to selection that process of selection takes years together. Sometimes, it is difficult for the candidates to keep track thereof. The schedule is either notified in the newspaper, limited in number, or uploaded on the website. It cannot be disputed that more than 60% of the population in Punjab live in villages and consequently the candidates are from rural areas, where availability of newspapers and internet facility is limited, besides the resources of the candidates. If under these circumstances, on account of unavoidable reason, a candidate is not able to appear in the counselling, he can loose opportunity of employment. The suffering is more in case it is found that the candidate is high up in the merit on the basis of marks secured in the written test and may not get employment only for the reason that he could not appear in the counselling. As a result, the candidates, who are less meritorious, may get opportunity of employment. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that selection has still not been finalised, though it is claimed in the written statement that it is at the final stage. It is not a case where the process of selection was going on in continuity, such as immediately after the written test was conducted, the result thereof was declared without any delay and consequently, the dates of counselling were notified.

Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the result of written test was declared two years thereafter and immediately the process for counselling was notified and the reason which, any of the candidate who missed the counselling, may be genuine leaving besides the case pleaded by the petitioner, they deserve to be granted another opportunity for which only the petitioner will not be entitled to the relief, rather, a fresh date has to be notified for the candidates who missed the counselling and were more meritorious than the last candidate called for counselling. Let the needful be done and thereafter selection be finalised.

As is evident from the advertisement, in the criteria for selection as prescribed, marks have been ear-marked for the candidates belonging to rural areas. This Court in Abhishek Rishi Vs. State of Punjab and Others, has already set aside awarding of marks to the candidates belonging to rural areas. The authority shall keep in view the aforesaid judgment.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

Before parting with the judgment, it is apt to mention that keeping in view the above factors and the limited number of job opportunities being available, in my opinion, it would be appropriate if the State frames a policy for providing tentative schedule in the advertisement itself pertaining to various steps in the process of selection so that none of the candidates, who may be more meritorious, misses the opportunity only because of lack of knowledge about any of the step in the process of selection. One of the modes for communication to the candidates can be by sending SMS by making it mandatory for them to furnish mobile number in the application form for the process.