Jagmohinder Singh and Others vs The Director General Health Services and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 6006 and 6706 of 1991 involving common questions of law and facts. For the purpose of judgment, Facts have been taken from C. W. P. No. 6006 of 1991, Joginder Singh and Ors. v. The Director Health Services Haryana and Ors.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to allow them to appear in the examination of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, which was being conducted by respondent No. 2 with effect from 6 5. 1991.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that the Director Health Services, Haryana, respondent No. 1 holds one year regular training course for the Laboratory Technicians The admission is controlled by the State Bacteriologist, Civil Hospital Karnal, respondent No. 2. The examination is conducted by respondent No. 2 in the months of September/October and the supplementary examination is held in the months of April/May every year. Successful candidates are awarded Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology which is recognised by the State of Haryana and other agencies for the purpose of employment. Similarly, under the Indian Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), the Director Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, selects apprentices, through various Industrial Institutions and after selection the candidates are attached with the Civil Hospitals at'' the district level for a period of two years and they are further engaged in practical training in Hospital Technology for the third year under respondent No. 2. On the completion of the training, respondents 1 and 2 conduct the examination. The respondents, however, have not allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination of Laboratory Technology which the respondent No. 2 has been conducting for the last so many years. The sudden departure has caused irreparable loss to the petitioners. This action of the respondents is arbitrary and against the rules.

Respondent No. 3 in his written statement has stated that when it came to his notice that respondent No. 1 had been conducting examination of appentices engaged, under the Act alongwith the apprentices selected by the Director, Health Services Haryana, in their own training scheme of Laboratory Technicians, he addressed a communication to respondent No. 1 directing him to abide by the provisions of the Act under which it is only Government of India through its recognised agency is competent to hold the examination. As such respondents No. 1 & 2 are not competent to hold the same.

Respondents No. 1 & 2 have also submitted in their written statement that the petitioners have no legal right to appear in the examination being conducted by respondent No. 2 i. e. the State Bacteriologist, Civil Hospital, Karnal.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

Section 21 of the Act envisages that every trade apprentice who has completed the period of training shall appear for a test to be conducted by the National Council to determine his proficiency in the designated trade in which he has undergone his apprenticeship training. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act provides that every trade appentice who passes the test shall be granted a certificate of proficiency in the trade by the National Council.

In view of the above provisions of the rule, the examination is to be conducted by Government of India and not by another agency. In the past, respondent No. 2 had been conducting the examination. The apprentices are required to undergo training as per the prescribed syllabus of the Laboratory Assistants and then become eligible to appear in the examination being conducted by Government of India. Under the scheme of the Act, every trade apprentice, who had entered into a contract of apprentice is to undergo apprenticeship training in accordance with the syllabi and the terms of the contract entered into.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has come to the conclusion that it is the Government of India which is competent to hold the examination.

This Court vide order dated May 3, 1991, had allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination commencing from May 6, 1991 which was to be conducted by respondent No. 2 at their own risk and responsibility. Subsequently by another order dated 28.8.1991 the respondents were directed to declare the result of the examination provisionally subject to the decision of the writ petition. It was also directed that if any of the petitioners'' failed in any paper they may be allowed to re-appear in the examination which was to commence on 3.9.1991, provisionally.

In view of the fact that this Court had allowed the petitioners to sit in the examination and their results have also been declared, it will be too harsh to ask the petitioners to appear afresh in the examination to be conducted by Director Industrial and Vocational Education on behalf of examination will be entirely different for which the petitioners have not prepared themselves. By invoking the principle of equity, it is directed that the petitioners be treated as regular candidates and their results having been declared, they be issued certificates per old practice prevailing for the last 20 years.

This will not be cited as precedent for other cases.

Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.