Santra Devi Garhwal vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Amitava Roy, C.J.—Apart from challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''2013 Rules'') effecting amendment to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''1965 Rules'') so far as it enhances/modifies the academic and other qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment to that post pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.2.2013 initiating a process therefor. In the alternative, an appropriate direction has also been requested to be issued to the respondents to grant relaxation to her in the matter of the amended qualification so prescribed by the 2013 Rules so as to construe her to be eligible for being considered for appointment to the post in question by direct recruitment. We have heard Dr. Saugath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

For the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it necessary to issue formal notice.

The petitioner claims to have passed the secondary examination in the year 2011 and also possessed of One Year Certificate Course from Chandra Mohan Jha University, Meghalaya in the year 2012. She belongs to the OBC. She has averred that as per the 1965 Rules, the conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician had been secondary or its equivalent with 9 months Training Certificate from a institute recognized by the government, and in absence thereof, secondary or its equivalent with Two Years Training Certificate of Laboratory Technology Course run by Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur or B.Sc. with Biology with Post Graduate Diploma in Laboratory Technology from MDS University, Ajmer with Hospital based Training in the JLN Medical College, Ajmer recognized by the government. By the 2013 Rules, the conditions of eligibility have been modified as hereunder:-

Senior Secondary with Biology and diploma in Medical Lab technician from institute recognized by State Government, and

Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council.

The post of Laboratory Technician, under the relevant rules, is to be filled up by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 85 : 15. Under the 2013 Rules, the conditions of eligibility of the candidates for promotion have been prescribed thus :-

Senior Secondary with Biology and diploma in Medical Lab Technician from institute recognized by State Government

OR

Secondary or its equivalent with 9 months Training Certificate from Institute recognized by Government, and

Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council.

A process for filling up 1166 posts of Laboratory Technician having been initiated by the advertisement dated 26.2.2013 by the Directorate of Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, the petitioner offered her candidature, whereafter a list of provisionally eligible candidates for the post has been published containing names of 308 candidates, in which she is not included. Being aggrieved, she has approached this Court seeking redress.

Dr. Roy has argued that the alteration in the conditions of eligibility introduced by the 2013 Rules is illogical and unwarranted, besides being unfair and discriminatory. The learned counsel has urged that whereas, the academic and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment have been modified, the earlier norms have been retained for the in-service candidates for promotion against the 15% quota in the posts. Contending that the petitioner also is serving in the post of Laboratory Technician in a project, and that, she is otherwise suitable to be inducted thereto by direct recruitment by all means, learned counsel has insisted that in the face of the existing vacancies, a direction ought to be issued to the respondents, in the alternative, to relax the conditions of eligibility prescribed by 2013 Rules vis-a-vis the petitioner and to consider her case for direct recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are not inclined to sustain these contentions.

The petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician as a direct recruit. It is within the discretion and domain of the State respondents to prescribe the norms of eligibility adjudged to be best suited for a post and this Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, would not interfere, unless such prescription is patently illegal and unconstitutional. Alteration in the existing criteria of eligibility rendering some ineligible thereby, would not ipso facto, make the modification invalid. That the qualifications for the post of Laboratory Technician prescribed by the 2013 Rules are either irrelevant or have no correlation whatsoever with the nature and quality of the services relatable thereto, is not discernible on the face of the records. As the qualifications mandated for the in-service candidates would reveal, the earlier norms of eligibility, in the alternative, have been retained for them. As the in-service candidates have been rendering their services since before the amendment, this initiative on the part of the respondents stands to logic. The petitioner, as a contender for direct recruitment, cannot claim parity or equivalence with the in-service candidate in this regard. The plea of discrimination between the direct recruits and promotees before the induction of the former in service, is wholly misplaced.

The contention that the case of the petitioner ought to be considered, even if she is not eligible in terms of 2013 Rules for direct recruitment only because the vacancies exist, also does not commend for acceptance. Qua her request for relaxation in the conditions of eligibility, we are not inclined to issue any direction, in the face of the prescription to that effect. It would be open for the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation before the concerned respondent authority seeking such a relief. In all, we see no merit in the challenge. The petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.