Dr. Satyabir vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (National Rural Health Mission), has approached this court challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 on the aforesaid post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner got his degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in the year 1996. He was enrolled with Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine System, Haryana on 13.5.1998. After his registration as a medical practitioner, the petitioner worked as Resident Doctor w.e.f. 10.2.2000 to 10.3.2003 in Sushruta Ano-Rectal Institute and Guda Roga Anusandhan Kendra, Rohini, Delhi. He also worked as Resident Doctor w.e.f. 11.3.2003 to 10.2.2005 in Prema Dhar Research Institute and Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. The District Health and Family Welfare Society, Narnaul issued advertisement for various posts including Ayurvedic Medical Officer for AYUSH. The qualifications prescribed for the post were knowledge of Hindi or Sanskrit upto Matric standard; a degree in Ayurvedic System of Medicine from any University/Institution recognised by the Government and registration with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Haryana. The last date for submission of application form was 14.7.2010, The interviews for the post were to be held on 19.7.2010. On the date of interview, nine candidates appeared- Respondent No. 6 was recommended for appointment, whereas respondent No. 7 was placed in the waiting list.

The appointment of respondent No. 6 on the post is sought to be challenged primarily on three grounds, namely, award of marks wrongly for Post Graduate Diploma; non-award of marks for work experience to the petitioner and award of lesser marks for "Resident of the Block" to the petitioner.

Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 6 was awarded 20 marks for Post Graduate Diploma. In fact, upto the date of filing of the application or for that matter, even upto the date of interview, she did not have Post Graduate Diploma to her credit. A certificate was produced from University of Patanjali, Hardwar (Annexure P-10) dated 19.7.2010, stating therein that respondent No. 6 appeared in all papers including practical examination. She completed Post Graduate Diploma in Panchkarma and the marks-sheet will be issued in August, 2010. The submission is that it cannot be said to be completion of course before the last date of filing of application, for which marks could be awarded to respondent No. 6 in the process of selection. He further submitted that in case 20 marks are reduced out of the total marks obtained by respondent No. 6, she will have 46 marks in total as against 66 given to her.

Learned counsel further submitted that prior to his filing application, the petitioner had five years and one month''s experience of working as Medical Officer in different institutes, but the same was totally ignored. In terms of the criteria made for selection, the petitioner deserved to be granted nine marks for the same. In case, those nine marks are added, the petitioner will secure 53 marks as against 44 marks already granted and will rank above the selected candidate. He further submitted that in response to a query raised by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, District Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Narnaul, vide communication dated 30.8.2010 specifically stated that no experience certificate was held to be invalid by him.

Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of the criteria laid down for selection, weightage was to be given to the "Resident of the Block", in which facility is situated, The petitioner is resident of village Talot, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh and he deserved to be granted full 10 marks and not 7 marks, as have been awarded. In case the petitioner is awarded 10 marks for being "Resident of the Block", the total marks secured by him would be 56 and he will be on top in the merit list. In fact, the entire selection was an eye-wash where the only aim was to select respondent No. 6 by awarding undue marks to her for Post Graduate Diploma, which she was not possessing on the last date of filing of application or even on the date of interview.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner could not be granted any marks for experience, as claimed by him, as his entire experience was working in different hospitals in Delhi. The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine System, Haryana. He did not obtain any permission to practice outside the State. He further submitted that the experience certificates (Annexures P-4 and P-5) did not contain any reference or despatch number and the Interview Committee was not satisfied with their genuineness, hence, no marks were awarded for the same. He further submitted that the certificate of respondent No. 6 regarding her appearance in Post Graduate Diploma in University of Patanjali was received through fax from Patanjali University on the date of interview. Regarding this certificate, it was submitted that the Interview Committee selected the most suitable candidate as the certificate was available before the Interview Committee. Regarding award of marks for being "Resident of the Block", it was submitted that the post advertised was for Civil Hospital, Narnaul Block, which represents the Health Administration. Village Talot falls under Dochana Health Block, which is controlled by Senior Medical Officer. This block consists of 63 villages including village Talot. Respondent No. 6, who is also not resident of Narnaul Block, was awarded 7 marks, whereas respondent No. 7, who is resident of Narnaul Block, was awarded 10 marks. It is wrong to claim that the post was meant for village Talot.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submitted that the petitioner does not have a locus standi to challenge the selection, as he is not even in the waiting list. Respondent No. 6 was declared selected, whereas respondent No. 7 is at No. 1 in the waiting list. As respondent No. 6 possessed the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma, there is nothing wrong in award of 20 marks for the same to her. A certificate to that effect was sent by University of Patanjali directly to the interview Committee. Even if for argument''s sake, it is taken that respondent No. 6 is not entitled to 20 marks for Post Graduate Diploma, she will still secure 46 marks, which will be above the petitioner as he secured 44 marks, hence, the petition otherwise also deserves to be dismissed being misconceived. The petitioner has rightly not been awarded marks for work experience for the reason that the certificates produced were merely on the prescription slips used by the doctors in OPD. These do not bear any despatch number etc.

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

The District Health and Family Welfare Society, Narnaul advertised various posts including the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer for AYUSH, The qualifications prescribed for the post were as under:

Ayurvedic Medical Officer:

(i) Knowledge of Hindi or Sanskrit upto Matric standard.

(ii) A Degree in Ayurvedic System of Medicine from any University/Institution recognized by the Government.

(iii) Registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine Haryana.

Age: 23-40 years.

The last date for receipt of the application, complete in all respects, was 14.7.2010 and the date of interview was 19.7.2010

In the criteria for selection, 100 marks were provided, out of which 70 marks were meant for educational qualifications; 10 marks for work experience; upto 10 marks for being "Resident of the Block" in which facility is situated and 10 marks for interview. The details thereof are extracted below:

The marks obtained by each of the candidate, who appeared for interview, in terms of the qualifications and experience possessed by them for being "Resident of the Block" and in interview are extracted below:

The first grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 6, the selected candidate, has been awarded 20 marks wrongly for Post Graduate Diploma. The contention is meritorious. In the application filed by respondent No. 6 for the post, in the column of technical/professional qualification, it was specifically mentioned that she was studying in Post Graduate Diploma in Panchkarma, the result of which was awaited. The date of interview was 19.7.2010. The Interview Committee awarded 20 marks to respondent No. 6 on the basis of certificate (Annexure P-10), which is dated 19.7.2010, i.e., the date on which interviews were to be held. It is claimed that the aforesaid certificate was sent directly by University of Patanjali to the Interview Committee through fax. What was the occasion for the University of Patanjali to send the certificate to the Interview Committee on the date of interview is not available on record? The text of the certificate issued by the University of Patanjali is extracted below:

UNIVERSITY OF PATANJALI, HARDWAR

Date: 19.7.2010

To whom so ever it may concern Certified that Km. Meenakshi Yadav D/o Sh. Satyavir Singh Yadav is a regular student of P.G. Diploma in Panchkarma in University of Patanjali, Haridwar. She appeared in all the papers including practical examination. She completed the P.G. Diploma in Panchkarma Course. The Marks Sheet will be issued in August, 2010.

Sd/- (Prof Ram Kumar Sharma) Officer on Special Duty For the post of an Ayurvedic Medical Officer (B.A.M.S.) under N.R.H.M. Narnaul

To

Civil Surgeon Narnaul

Sd/- Dy. Civil Surgeon (NRHM), Narnaul.

As respondent No. 6 was not having the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma on the last date of submission of application form, she was not entitled to be awarded 20 marks for the same. If the aforesaid marks are reduced, the total marks secured by her would be 46 and not 66 marks.

As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding award of lesser marks for being "Resident of the Block" is concerned, as per the criteria laid down, 10 marks could be awarded to the "Resident of the Block" in which the facility is situated. If a candidate belongs to the same district, he/she is entitled to 7 marks. If the candidate belongs to Haryana State, he/she is entitled to 5 marks and a candidate belonging to another State is not entitled to any mark.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to claim that the petitioner being resident of village Talot was entitled to 10 marks, as the facility was to be located there. No such pleading has been referred to in support of the argument. The definite stand of the official respondents in the written statement is that requirement of Ayurvedic Medical Officer was for Civil Hospital, Narnaul Block. Village Talot falls in Dochana Health Block, which is independently controlled by Senior Medical Officer. This block consists of 63 villages. The petitioner being not of same Health Block, for which the post was advertised, he was rightly not granted 10 marks for the same and there is nothing wrong in award of 7 marks on that account. Even respondent No. 6, the selected candidate, who is resident of District Mahendergarh, has also been awarded 7 marks. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner on that account is misconceived, hence, rejected.

The third submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was pertaining to award of marks for experience. In the application form, submitted by the petitioner, he claimed three years'' experience in Sushruta Ano-Rectal Institute and Guda Roga Anusandhan Kendra, Delhi and two years'' experience in Maharshi Charak Ayurveda Centre, Delhi. As per the evaluation made by the Interview Committee, no marks were awarded to the petitioner for his experience. Though in the written statement, the stand sought to be taken was that the certificate could not be relied upon for the reason that no despatch number was mentioned thereon. However, the petitioner referred to a memo dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P-11), whereby in response to a query raised by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was stated that no experience certificate was held to be invalid. Further, the Interview Committee had considered a certificate received through fax pertaining to qualification of respondent No. 6 from University of Patanjali, Hardwar on the date of interview as correct and awarded marks on the basis thereof. As far as the experience gained by the petitioner, while working for five years in two different institutes is concerned, as per the guide-lines, the petitioner would be entitled to 9 marks therefor. However, still considering the fact that the petitioner had secured total 44 marks, even if 9 more marks are added therein, he will secure 53 marks.

As per the merit list prepared by the Interview Committee, respondent No. 6 was declared selected as she had secured 66 marks. As award of 20 marks for Post Graduate Diploma has been found erroneous, she will secure 46 marks. The second candidate in the merit list is respondent No. 7, who secured 55 marks. The petitioner though had secured 44 marks, but even if the certificates produced by him regarding his experience are considered to be genuine and he is awarded 9 marks therefor, he will still secured 53 marks. As a result thereof, he will still remain below the candidate securing 55 marks, who will be the highest.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the selection of respondent No. 6 as Ayurvedic Medical Officer is set aside. The petitioner as such will also not be entitled to any relief. Rather, respondent No. 7, who shall now be first in the merit list, deserves to be appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer having secured first position in the merit list. Let the needful be done. The petition stands disposed of.