AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 12.12.1996, the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of the present writ petition for quashing the same as well as for further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner who is in waiting list
No. 1 in the post of Laboratory Technician, Grade HI in the 3rd respondent department.
The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:
The petitioner completed his B.Sc. Degree in Special Chemistry during June, 1993. He joined the Voluntary Health Services, College of Medical
Technology, Adyar, Chennai-113, and underwent the full time post-graduate diploma course in Medical Laboratory Technology for a period of
one year and successfully completed the Post Graduate Diploma during July, 1994. Immediately the petitioner was appointed as a Lab. Assistant
in the Voluntary Health Services, Adyar, Chennai-113 and he continues to serve, in the said institution till date. It is contended that the first
respondent issued a paper publication in ''The Hindu'' dated 5.5.1996 calling for applications for several posts of which the present writ petitioner
relates to the post of Laboratory Technician in the Department of Microbiology, the third respondent herein. The petitioner applied to the first
respondent in the prescribed format giving all particulars as to his age, educational qualification, work experience and also enclosed the attested
copies of his degree and P.G. Diploma Certificates, community certificate and experience certificate. The first respondent being satisfied with the
petitioner''s credentials, by official communication dated 5.8.96 called upon him to appear for an interview for the post of Laboratory Technician
Grade III on 12.9.1996 in the chambers of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 12.9.1996 along with
all originals. The second respondent conducted a written test as well as oral interview and the petitioner performed excellent in both and members
of the committee also appreciated the petitioner. Along with the petitioner 10 others also attended the interview after written test and the 4th
respondent was also one among the candidates who appeared for the interview for selection. The petitioner came to know that by proceedings
dated 12.12.1996, the first respondent has appointed the fourth respondent as Laboratory Technician Grade III in the 3rd respondent institute.
The said order is challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. It is also contended that as per the qualification stipulated in the paper
publication, the candidate should be a B.Sc., graduate plus should possess a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from Voluntary Health
Service, Adyar or any recognised Institutions. The fourth respondent on the date of application had not completed her Diploma Course and in her
application itself she has mentioned that her results are awaited. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is ineligible to apply
for the said post, since she did not have the required Educational Qualification as on the date of application. Hence, the order of appointment
issued in favour of the fourth respondent is unsustainable. On the other hand, the petitioner has possessed a B.Sc., Degree in Special Chemistry
together with Post Graduate Diploma from Voluntary Health Service at Adyar as prescribed in the paper publication and has also been working as
Laboratory Technician in Voluntary Health Services, Adyar itself. However, the second respondent failed to consider these factors and have
selected the 4th respondent on erroneous consideration. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent has not acquired her Diploma as on the date
when she applied for the said post and hence she could not have any experience as a qualified Laboratory Technician, since she had acquired her
diploma only after June, 1996. Admittedly the 4th respondent did not possess the diploma on the date when she applied for the post, nor she
obtained before the cut off date prescribed in the paper publication on 27.5.1996. Therefore, the 4th respondent is ineligible even to apply for the
post much less to be selected. Hence, according to the petitioner, the impugned order selecting the fourth respondent to the post of Laboratory
Technician in the third respondent department is illegal and ab initio void.
Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter-affidavit wherein they denied the various averments made by the petitioner. The establishment
Committee has prescribed the following qualifications for the post of Laboratory Technician-Grade III:
B.Sc., with Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from VHS Adyar or any recognized institution.
The above said qualification was modified as follows:
B.Sc., with 6 years experience as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Micro-Biology and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology
from VHS Adyar or any recognised institution.
The qualification was modified as stated above and an advertisement was made in ''The Hindu'' dated 8.5.1996 calling for applications for the post
of Laboratory Technician in the department of Micro-Biology. The last date for receipt of applications was stipulated as 27.5.1996. The total
number of applications received for the said post was 19 out of which 13 applications were received in time and 6 applications after the due date.
A selection Committee was constituted to conduct the interview for the said post. Interview cards were sent to 11 eligible candidates asking them
to appear for interview on 12.9.1996. After the process of interview, the selection committee selected the fourth respondent for the post of
Laboratory Technician, since it found, out of the ten candidates who attended the interview, the fourth respondent herein possessing necessary
qualifications and necessary experience. The selection was approved by the Syndicate on 18.10.1996. It is also contended that the Selection
Committee considered the experience and technical skill of the candidates during the written test and interview. The fourth respondent served for 8
years in the Department of Micro-Biology in the University of Madras itself as Laboratory Technician earlier. In the written test and interview
conducted, the fourth respondent has secured 50 marks out of 65 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured only 34 out of 65 marks. In those
circumstances, according to the respondents 1 to 3, it is submitted that the fourth respondent satisfies all the conditions for the post of Laboratory
Technician and absolutely there are no merits in the present writ petition.
Though notice has been served on the fourth respondent, she has not chosen to contest the case.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the arguments of Mr. N. Paul Vasanthakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.
Ramamoorthy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3.
There is no dispute that the minimum qualification for the post of Laboratory Technician is B.Sc., Degree with six years experience as
Laboratory Technician in the department of Micro-Biology and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from V.H.S. Adyar or any recognised
institution. The number of vacancy is only one and in the paper publication, the respondents 1 to 3 invited applications upto 27th May, 1996.
There is no fixed date indicated in the advertisement notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be
judged, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the application. In the advertisement, there is no date
fixed with regard to the qualification mentioned in column 4. In those circumstance, the applicants must possess the requisite minimum qualifications
on 27.5.1996 which is the last date as per the notification published in the Hindu dated 8.5.1996. There is also no dispute that on the last date of
the application namely 27.5.1996 the fourth respondent has not possessed Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from Voluntary Health
Service, Adyar or any recognized institution. However, it is submitted by respondent 1 to 3 that on the date of her application, she had written an
examination awaiting result and on the date of interview, she secured the Diploma qualification stated above. In those circumstance, according to
Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any relevant date in the application with regard to the qualification
on the last date of application, the applicant must possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed. As already stated, the respondents 1 to 3 have
not mentioned any date with regard to the minimum qualification. In the absence of any date, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, all
the applicants must possess the required minimum qualification on 27.5.1996. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the applicants
must be fully qualified on the date of the applications. On the other hand, the 4th respondent could not secure Diploma in Medical Laboratory
Technology from Voluntary Health Service, Adyar or any other recognized institution on the date of the application. In such circumstance, he very
much relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (1993) 3 S.C.C. (Supp.) 168. In the
case before the Supreme Court, the University invited applications by its advertisement dated 12.10.1983 for appointment to 10 posts of Assistant
Professors (Lecturers) in the Department of History in the University of Rajasthan. The last date for submitting applications was November 14,
1983. Out of 112 applications received, the Scrutiny Committee of the University on April 25,1984 recommended 106 candidates for being
interviewed, the remaining six being found ineligible for the posts. Out of the 106 candidates so recommended, only 65 candidates appeared for
interview, out of which the Scrutiny Committee selected 8 candidates who are respondents 5 to 12 before the Supreme Court. Out of the 8, two
were earmarked for the reserved posts. The Scrutiny Committee placed five other candidates including the petitioner before the Supreme Court on
the waiting list. The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) for the said case is a Doctorate degree or
research work of an equally high standard and a good academic record with at least a second class (C in the seven point scale) Master''s degree in
a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. After analysing the qualification of the six candidates,
the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that respondent 5 before them had no Doctorate degree. He had a good academic record in M.A.,
but did not have good record in B.A. He had published work, of high standard and also two years'' research work to his credit. Respondent 6 had
no Doctorate degree. He had, however, good academic record both in M.A. and B.A., but had neither any published work of high standard nor
two years research experience, to his credit. Respondent 7 had no Doctorate degree. She had, however, good academic record both in M.A. and
B.A. She had not published work of high standard nor had she two years'' research work to her credit. Respondent 8 had no Doctorate degree.
She had, however, good academic record both in M.A. and B.A. though she did not have to her credit published work of high standard nor two
years'' research work. Respondent 10 had Doctorate degree and also a good academic record both in M.A. and B.A. She had also experience of
two years research work there was no published work of high standard or two years'' research work to her credit. It is further seen from the said
judgment that respondent 5 and 11 were awarded Doctorate degree on December 14, 1984 and January 4, 1985 respectively which, according
to the Supreme Court, is irrelevant since the qualifications had to be judged with reference to the last date for submitting the applications for the
posts. Except in the case of respondent, 10, the qualifications of the other selected candidates had to be relaxed by the Scrutiny Committee. It was
sought to be argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the University that since at the time of selection, respondents 5 and 11 had obtained
their Doctorate degrees, they could be said to have fulfilled the qualifications. It was also argued before the Supreme Court that since respondents
6 and 7 were registered for Ph.D. on January, 22 1982 and May 26, 1982 respectively, by the time of the selection they had put in research work
connected with their thesis and in February, 1985, viz., the date of selection, they had about 3 years'' experience in research work. It is also
contended before the Supreme Court that the Scrutiny Committee was a high power Committee and after interviewing 65 candidates, it had
selected only 8 candidates and had placed them in the order of merit. The Court should not, therefore, interfere with the said selection. In those
circumstance, Their Lordships have held in the following manner:
The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference
to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of
knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not,
if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be
judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite
qualifications in presenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even
those candidates who do not have the qualifications in presenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts
thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractice. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manufactured as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date
indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged the only certain
date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the
selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of
selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are
liable to be quashed. After holding so, Their Lordships declined to set aside the selection since the selected candidates have been working in the
respective posts since February, 1985 and almost 8 years have elapsed and in view of the fact that almost 8 years have elapsed they have not
interfered with the selection. However, they lay down the guidelines for future selection process and the same is hereby extracted.-
We, however, feel it necessary to emphasis and bring to the notice of the University that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates which
have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its and must stop forthwith. It is for this purpose that we lay down the following
guidelines for the future selection process:
A. The University must note that the qualifications it advertises for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by its
Ordinance/Statutes.
B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making application for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically
mentioned in the advertisement/notifications for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidate after the said date should not be taken
into account, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/notification represents that
the candidates must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific
date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such
qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even
be better than those who apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration.
C. When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifically stated in the
advertisement/notification both that the qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed, the relaxation, will be
illegal.
D. The University/Selection Committee must mentioned in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations, if any in respect of each
of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made.
E. The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time, and if the selection process is
challenged until the challenge is finally disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken the
they are not available.
The guidelines prescribed in ''B'' above by the Supreme Court are applicable to our case. As per the said guidelines B, the candidates selected
must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the
advertisement/notification for the purpose. As already stated, in this case, in the absence of any specific date with regard to the minimum
qualifications, the applications must possess the required minimum qualifications on the last date of applications that is, on 27.5.1996. Admittedly
there is no dispute that on 27.5.1996 fourth respondent has not secured Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology even though she had written
examinations and secured the Diploma at the time of selection. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the fourth respondent on the
material date that is on 27.5.1996 was lacking in minimum qualification. Even though she was having other qualifications and experience in
Laboratory Technician in the Department of Micro-Biology. In view of the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in the above referred case, I
am of the view that though the fourth respondent qualified herself on the date of selection, she was not having requisite qualifications on the last
date of applications that is in 27.5.1996. If that is so, the impugned order selecting the fourth respondent to the post of laboratory Technician in the
third respondent Department is illegal and ab initio void. Under these circumstances, since the fourth respondent has not possessed the requisite
qualifications on the date of her application as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (1993) 3
S.C.C. (Supp.) 168 the impugned order of the first respondent dated 12.12.1996 is hereby quashed. Even according to the respondents 1 to 3,
the petitioner has been placed as No. 1 in the waiting list, hence the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
There will be no order as to costs.