Ashish Salgotra vs State of Punjab and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner applied for the post of Physiotherapist pursuant to the advertisement which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The educational qualifications as given in the advertisement and the ones possessed by the petitioner are not in dispute except for the condition of having three years experience which the petitioner did not possess. Against the prescribed condition of experience, the petitioner merely had four months of work experience. The petitioner had applied against the Ex-serviceman category in which two posts were available. All these posts were contractual in nature and intended to last for one year, but with possibility of their continuance beyond that as well. The petitioner concedes that he does not have the requisite experience, but relies on the condition where relaxation was permissible. The relevant portion of the advertisement in this regard is extracted here below:-

"Relaxation in experience will be given if eligible candidates are not available for the posts mentioned at Sr. No. 7, 9 & 10."

The petitioner relies on the information that he has obtained under the Right to Information Act wherein it has been stated that against the Ex-serviceman category, lineal descendant certificate of only one candidate was found to be correct and this candidate could be considered for issuance of appointment letter after second counseling. According to the petitioner, the petitioner''s lineal descendant certificate was in order, but the respondents neither held the second counseling, nor afforded the benefit of counseling to the petitioner thereby depriving him of appointment. It is thus pleaded that the action of the respondents is unjust and liable to be set aside.

On a prior occasion, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order with regard to the claim of the petitioner and Annexure P-6 is the result of such exercise which is also impugned by the petitioner in the present petition.

A perusal of Annexure P-6 would reveal that the respondents have stated that no candidate of Physiotherapist category has been appointed by giving relaxation in experience. The respondents in their reply largely relied upon the fact that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience and since no relaxation was given to any of the candidates, the petitioner cannot claim the same as a matter of right. Besides, it has been stated that the select list was issued in the year 2011 and the entire process would have a life of one year and thus, the petitioner who approached this Court now, cannot get any benefit.

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot assert as a matter of right that relaxation should be given to him particularly when the power has not been exercised in case of any candidate who have so far been appointed. Relaxation not being a matter of right, its denial cannot be questioned by the petitioner to be violative in matters pertaining to equal opportunity of employment. Indeed, it would have been more appropriate if the respondents would have reflected in their reasoning the logic of not exercising the issue of relaxation if they had prescribed it in the advertisement. But having not done so in favour of any other candidate, I am of the view that the yardstick of having the educational qualification with experience has been strictly adhered to. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find that the petitioner has any enforceable right in his favour and the petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. However, this would have no bearing on the subsequent selection process in which the petitioner might have made an attempt in this regard. The respondents would obviously return the documents of the petitioner, if any, retained by them.