Vishal Bhati and Others vs State and Others

Sunil Hali, J.—Vide Notification No. 6 of 2004 dated 29.09.2004, the Service Selection-Board advertised 13 vacancies (Open Merit-9,

RBA-2, ST-1, SC-1) of Laboratory Assistants in District Cadre, Jammu. The prescribed qualification was Matric with Diploma in Laboratory

Assistant Training Course from State Medical Faculty or any other recognized Institute. In order to make selection, the following criteria was

adopted for selection of the candidates:

Weightage to Diploma in Lab Assistant = 50 points

Weightage to Matric = 25 points

Weightage to Addl. Qualification (10+2) = 03 points

Weightage to Graduation = 02 Points

Viva voce = 20 points

Total = 100 points

In pursuance to Rule 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1992, the Chairman, Service Selection Board

nominated 3 persons to conduct the interview. One of the members was Dr. Vinod Gupta, Chief Medical Officer. After the process of selection

was conducted, 9 candidates were selected in the open category, who are Respondents in this case. Being aggrieved of their non selection, the

Petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court.

The contention of the Petitioners is that under Rule 9 of Jammu and Kashmir. Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1992, the Chairman is

required to co-opt an expert specialist in the discipline, for which recruitment has to be made, which has not been done in the present case. It is

stated that Chief Medical Officer was only MBBS, who was co-opted in the Committee. The other ground raised by the Petitioners is that

weightage has been given to the higher qualification i.e. graduation and the basic technical qualification i.e. B.Sc. laboratory technology has been

excluded. According to the Petitioners, weightage should have given to the persons who are B.Sc. Lab. Technology and not mere graduate.

On the other hand, the stand of the Respondents is that expert co-opted for the selection was M.B.B.S, and was capable of holding the

selection to the post of Laboratory Assistant. It is indicated that 'Pathology' is one of the subject in M.B.B.S, as such, said member was fully

competent to conduct the interview of the candidates to a post, which did not require assistance of an expert having special knowledge in

Pathology. Higher weightage has been given to technical qualification i.e. 50 marks and 02 marks only have been given to the graduation.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that for conducting interview for the post of Laboratory Assistant, the knowledge of pathology is not required. The ability in

the subject was not fundamental to the nature of the job as Laboratory Assistant. It is clearly envisaged in the rules that expert/specialist may be

co-opted in the discipline for which recruitment has to be made. Admittedly, the appointment was not made in the discipline of pathology, so it was

not incumbent to appoint an expert in that field. The Chairman has co-opted Dr. Vinod Gupta to judge the ability of the candidates, regarding the

manner in which they are required to handle the instruments of the laboratory. One cannot find any fault in appointment of Dr. Vinod Gupta as a

member of the Committee. It is reiterated that Dr. Vinod Gupta was only a member and not an expert appointed under Rule 9 of aforesaid

Recruitment Rules.

Regarding the second contention raised that higher weightage has been given to the graduate candidates, which has resulted in exclusion of the

Petitioners, even though they had better merit in the basic technical qualification. It is reiterated that as the Petitioners have participated in the

interview process and were aware of the fact that 02 points have been reserved for additional qualification of graduation, and 50% marks have

been reserved for technical qualification, they cannot question the criteria after having participated in the interview process.

As per mandate of law, a person, who has participated in the selection process and has not questioned the mode of such selection, cannot turn

down and question the same. The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, , has clearly laid down that

when the petition appeared in the interview without protest and after having failed to find their name in the select list, they cannot challenge the

selection including the criteria.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected CMP, if any.