Sunita Devi vs State of Haryana

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The complaint of the petitioner is that she has been denied right of interview for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (MPHW) (Female). She submitted her application form before the last date fixed. The advertisement was published in the Sonepat Bhaskar newspaper on 24th October, 2013. The posts were to be filled on contract basis upto 31st March, 2014. The offer has been made renewable, if required. The eligibility criteria advertised that the applying candidate should hold the diploma in MPHW from a Government institution registered with Haryana Nursing Council. This condition was mandatory. The petitioner claims to have qualified the MPHW (Female) vocational course in December, 2011 from the Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali. She studied at the Mohali International Institute, Mohali to obtain the aforesaid qualification. She holds the matriculation examination certificate issued by Board of School Education, Haryana in the examination held in 1993. The relief claimed has been denied to the petitioner. She was not called for the written test and interview etc. for the reason that her MPHW (Female) course certificate has not been obtained from a Government Institution as the diploma/certificate has been issued by respondent No. 3 being the Para Medical Council, Punjab. It has not been disputed in the petition that Para Medical Council, Punjab is a private institution. The mandatory condition laid down in the advertisement of qualifying the MPHW course from a Government institution only has been questioned in this petition. It is argued that this condition is illegal and arbitrary because the employer cannot restrict the qualification obtained from Government institutions alone and the other private registered institutions deserve to be treated at par with Government institutions and she should, therefore, be considered eligible for the advertised post.

I am afraid the petitioner has not made out a case of unfair discrimination between qualifications earned from Government institutions and private institutions. It is for the employer to lay down the qualifications to fill public posts which authority remains within its domain as it carries the duty of running Government institutions and departments on its own terms. There appears to be reasonable classification between Government and private run institutions and any interference by this Court in the matter would amount to interfering with policy decisions subject matter of rule making authorities. The petitioner has placed reliance on an interim order passed by this Court in CWP No. 14361 of 2011 where the petitioners were directed to be interviewed provisionally subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The interim order is dated 8.8.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners in that case had relied on an earlier order dated 16.2.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1373 of 2009, Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others in which identical issues had been considered and decided as raised in CWP No. 14361 of 2011, Balwinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others in which Para Medical Council, Mohali was also arrayed as respondent. A perusal of the prayer made in CWP No. 14361 of 2011 shows that the challenge there was to the restriction imposed by the State Government on the training course which was required to be obtained only from Haryana Government institutions for being eligible for the post of MPHW (Male). CWP No. 14361 of 2011 was rendered infructuous on 18.4.2012 on a statement of the Civil Surgeon, Panchkula that the advertisement then issued on the basis of which the petitioners were seeking right to interviews, has been scrapped. The advertisement, in the present case, is different. All that is required for the post of MPHW (Female & Male) at Serial No. 7 of the advertisement is that the MPHW diploma is required to be obtained from Government institutions. The words "Government Institutions" are not restricted to Haryana but what is alone necessary is that institutions making diploma holders have to be registered with the Haryana Nursing Council. Therefore, the cases relied upon are distinguishable on facts. The qualification rule herein is in three parts. First, the MPHW diploma should be earned from Government run institutions; Second, registration with Haryana Nursing Council; Third, two years experience from the date of completion of the course. The prescribed age limit range is from 18 to 55 years.

The certificate of passing the vocational course in the present case has been issued by the Registrar of the Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali on 19th January, 2012. The last date of submission of the application form in the public notice is 18th November, 2013. The vocational course, if it can be said to be a ''diploma'' was earned through certificate dated 9th January, 2012. Technically speaking, the petitioner could not be said to have 2 years experience to hold the post by the cut off date, i.e., 18th November, 2013 which fact itself non-suits the petitioner without having to go any further. It is even stranger that the petitioner has not asserted in the petition whether she has experience at all as a multi purpose health worker earned from any particular institution or body. The only reason given for challenge to the notified qualifications restricting them to Government institutions is that careers of candidates who have passed from registered private institutions would be ruined if they are denied participation in the selection process since it is said that most of the students prefer admission in private institutions because in Government institutions teachers earn handsome salary but do not work hard as compared to private institutions for which reasons students prefer to take admission in private institutions. A sweeping statement has been made that private institutions have better infrastructure than Government institutions which appears to be a wholly misinformed statement of which no notice can be taken without supportive data. It is another matter that no quantifiable data has been mentioned in the writ petition for this Court to compare Government and private institutions to know the quality of instruction imparted there. This argument is fallacious and is rejected as a ground of challenge to the notified qualifications/eligibility criteria. Government and private institutions form separate classes and the Government would remain well within its right to reasonably classify qualifications and to select one from the other and to apply it uniformly to all candidates as have applied. The question of unfair discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is turned down for examination as there looks nothing unfair in picking out Government institutions by a public employer to fill posts on contract basis under the State with salary paid from government purse or Central Government sponsored National Rural Health Mission or the Urban Health Mission to run a Polyclinic in Sonepat. This petition is clearly half baked and a frivolous piece of litigation which deserves dismissal. I hesitate to impose costs. Ordered accordingly.