Dhamandeep Singh and others vs Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab and others

R.C. Knthuria, J.—The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nalure of mandamus directing the respondents to issue roll numbers/interview letters and to interview them for the posts of Radiographer.

Thirty-one posts of Radiographer for appointment with the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, were advertised in the Tribune dated 15.9.1997 by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board''). The advertisement in this regard is Annexure P-24 to the writ petition. The qualifications prescribed for the said posts were Matric with Physics/Chemistry from a recognised University/Board and two years'' Radiographer Course from any recognised Institution. The last date for receipt of the applications in the Board''s office was fixed as 14.10.1997. The petitioners had passed the Matriculation examination with the subjects of Science and Punjabi and completed para-medical two years'' vocational course in X-Ray Technician (Radiographer) from the Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 10, Chandigarh, affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. Thereafter, petitioners Nos. I and 2 also underwent one year Apprenticeship training from Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, and petitioner No. 3 from Government Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. They have also undergone 45 days job training Course. In additions, they have participated is State Level Vocational Competition held in X-Ray Technology during Vocational Competition Week. They applied for the posts of Radiographer well in time and attached true copies of all their requisite certificates along with the applications.

A notice with regard to interviews for the said posts scheduled from 27.4.1999 to 29.4.1999 was issued by the Board in ''the Tribune'' dated 7.4.1999. By that time, the petitioners did not receive any communication from the Board with regard to the acceptance/rejection of their applications. It was specified in the notice dated 7.4.1999 that the candidates who had not received their roll numbers/call numbers for the interview, should personally visit the office of the Board three days in advance to collect their interview letters. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the Board''s office to collect their roll numbers/interview letters, but were verbally informed that they were not eligible for the post of Radiographer. Dhamandeep Singh (petitioner No. 1) submitted representation dated 27.4.1999 (Annexure P-25) to the Secretary of the Board for issuance'' of roll number, but without any result. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the fact that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions required for the post of Radiographer, they have not been called for interview by the Board for the said post. Forced by these circumstances, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India terming the action of the respondents as mala fide, illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

In the written statement filed, the respondents resisted the stand of the petitioners and pleaded that for the posts advertised, the qualifications of the petitioners were not equivalent to two years'' course of Radiographer from the recognised Institution as per clarification received from the Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 9.7.1999 (Annexure R-1/T). As they were not eligible for the said posts, (they) were not called for interview.

We have heard Mr. Hardip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

For appointment to the posts of Radiographer, preconditions prescribed in the advertisement dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure P-24) read as under :

"Radiographer (Both Sex)

Qualifications : Matric with Phy./Chem. from the recognised University/Board.

Two years Radiographers Course from any recognised institutions."

Further, with regard to the equivalence of qualifications in this regard, the Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, in his letter dated 9.7.1999 (Annexure R-1/T), has explained the position as under :

"Clarification regarding course of Radiography was sought from the Principal, Medical College, Pa-tiala. In this respect Professor and Head of the X-Ray Department, Medical College, Patiala, vide his letter No. 445 dated 24.6.1999 (photo copy enclosed) has given the following clarification:

Following subjects are to be taught during the Radiography training course and this Course will be of two years :

Anatomy : Related to Radiography, Theory, Viva Voce and Practical.

Physiology : Related to Radiography, Theory, Viva Voce and Practical.

Physics : Related to Radiography, Theory, Viva Voce and Practical.

Radiography : Theory, Viva Voce and Practical.

Prior to 1992, the above-mentioned two years Radiography Course was after basic qualification of Matriculation. However, after 1992 the basic qualification for the said course was prescribed as 10+2. As such due to the reasons mentioned above (10+2) vocational Radiography Course is not equivalent to two years Radiography Course."

In order to meet the stand of the respondents and to press the claim of the petitioners, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the extract of the Information Brochure, copy of which has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-l. This Brochure reveals that the State Institute of Education, Education Department, Chandigarh, had prescribed X-Ray Technician Course (10+2), which is a vocational stream course affiliated to the Central Board of School Education, New Delhi. The object of the said course is to train the candidates in the field of Radiography, Dark-Room and Radiography so as to fill the gap between supply and demand of para-medical in X-Ray Technology besides providing technical know-how about Cobalt, Radium and deep X-Ray and to make the students conversant with the latest sophisticated modern imaging modalities such as C.T., Ultra-sound and N.M.R. The candidates were eligible to do this Course after passing Matriculation Examination. The petitioners have completed X-Ray Technician Course as is evident from the copies of the certificates annexed with the petition as Annexures P-3 (in respect of petitioner No. 1), P-8 (in respect of petitionerNo. 2) and P-14 (in respect of petitioner No. 3). A comparative study of subjects prescribed for X-Ray Technician Course, which has been undertaken by the petitioners, and the subjects taught during Radiography Training Course, detailed in Annexure R-1/T, reproduced above, clearly bring out the distinction of both the Courses. The other distinguishing feature is that for seeking admission to the Radiography Training Course after 1992, a candidate must have passed 10+2 Examination. The petitioners had passed Matriculation examination, which is the basic qualification for doing X-Ray Technician Course, and thereafter they did the said Course.

It is well-settled that when the question of equivalence of the qualifications is raised, then the normal rule is that the equivalent should be determined by the appointing authority or by the competent authority. In this case, admittedly, no statutory Rules have been framed prescribing the qualifications for the Radiography Training Course. Therefore, the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure P-24) by the competent authority had to be fulfilled by the petitioners before they could be called for interview.

During the course of arguments, reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to Rule 39 of the Medical Education and Research Punjab Service (Class-Ill Technician) Rules, 1998, which deals with the qualifications for the posts of X-Ray As-sistant-cum-Operation Theatre Assistant/X-Ray Assistant/Technician. On the face of the record, the qualifications for the said posts are entirely different than what have been prescribed for the post of Radiogra-phy. It has been specifically notified in the advertise- ment (Annexure P-24) that the candidates should have possessed the qualifications of Matric with Physics/Chemistry from the recognised University/Board and two years Radiographer Course from any recognised Institution. Therefore, there is no equivalence whatsoever between the said two Courses. In view of the position explained above, the petitioners have failed to establish that they hold the requisite qualifications for being considered for appointment to the post of Radiographer, so advertised by the Board vide advertisement Annexure P-24. Under the circumstances of the case, the observations made in Dharamvir v. Stale of Haryana and another, 1996(1) Recent Services Judgments 296, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitions, renders no assistance. In that case, the petitioner was a Graduate with Geography and also a Bachelor in Education on the date of submission of application. Therefore, he was eligible to be appointed as Social Studies Master. The qualifications prescribed for the said post in the advertisement were contrary to the Rules. It is for this reason that it was observed that no advertisement could be issued against the statutory rules and no additional qualification not mentioned in the Rules could be prescribed for appointment. As already stated above, in the present case, the qualifications for the post of Radiographer have not been prescribed by any statutory rules.

Resuitantly, there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.