AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.S. Khehar, C.J.
The appellants issued an advertisement dated 13.11.2006 inviting applications for appointment, against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. Respondent-1 Shashikala S. responded to the aforesaid advertisement, well before the last date of submission of the application forms. It is not a matter of dispute, that during the process of selection, Respondent No. 1 secured more marks than the cut-off percentage. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the cut-off percentage of marks for Category-IIA female was 61.05952%, whereas, Respondent No 1 had secured 66.5%. It is also apparent from the pleadings of the case, that even though, 552 posts of Junior Laboratory Technician had to be filled up through the process of selection conducted by the appellant, only 529 posts came to be filled up. It is therefore obvious that three posts remained unfilled.
In order to claim appointment, consequent upon her having secured more than the cut-off percentage of marks, respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4114/08. During the course of proceedings of the aforesaid writ petition, the stance adopted by the appellant herein was, that respondent No. 1 Smt. Shashikala S. was ineligible for consideration, and as such, could not be offered appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. Despite the aforesaid stance adopted by the appellants herein, Writ Petition No. 4114/08 was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.8.2009.
Through the instant Writ Appeal, the appellants have assailed the order passed on 28.8.2009, whereby Writ Petition No. 4114/08 came to be allowed.
The only issue which is subject matter of our consideration is, whether respondent No. 1 fulfills the conditions of eligibility for appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the appellants, invited our attention to the fact that the Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department Services (Recruitment to certain cadres) (Special Recruitment), Rules, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Rules) were applicable to determine the eligibility for appointment to the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. The learned Counsel for the appellants, accordingly, invited our attention to the schedule appended thereto. The schedule interalia enumerates the minimum qualifications for appointment against the posts regulated by the 2006 Rules, including post of Junior Laboratory Technician. Clause-3 from the aforesaid schedule was brought to our notice which is being extracted hereunder:
Sl. No
Category of posts and Scale of Pay
Minimum Qualification
3.
Jr. Medical Laboratory
Technologist(old name is Junior Laboratory Technician) Rs. 3850-100-4450-125-5700-150-7050)
Pass in PUC with Chemistry and Laboratory Technician training course
OR
b) Pass in SSLC or possess equivalent qualification and 2 years vocational Diploma course in Laboratory Technician
OR
(c) Pass in PUC with Science subjects and two years Laboratory Technician Course conducted by Para-Medical Board, Karnataka.
Or
Pass in SSLC or possess equivalent qualification and three years Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology conducted by Para-Medical Board, Karnataka.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 1 did not satisfy any of the alternative conditions of eligibility stipulated for appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. In order to determine the eligibility of the respondent, and in order to obviate any ambiguity in connection with prescription of qualification to the post of Junior Laboratory Technician, we consider it just and appropriate to extract hereunder, even the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement dated 13.11.2006 (for appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician). The said qualification as they appeared in the advertisement are being extracted hereunder:
Name of the Post
Qualification
Age
Method of Selection
Jr. Medical Lab.
Technologist
(Jr. Lab. Tech)
1) Pass in PUC with Chemistry and Lab Technician training course OR
GM-33 Years OBC -36 Years
(m) Percentage of marks secured in PUC + % of marks in Lab-Technician Course divided by two.
OR
j) Pass in SSLC or possess equivalent qualification & two years vocational Diploma course in Laboratory Technician.
SC/ST /C/I-38 Years
(n) Percentage of marks secured in SSLC or equivalent qualification + Percentage of marks secured both the years of vocational Diploma course divided by two
OR
k) Pass in PUC with Science subjects and 2 years
Lab. Techn. course conducted by Para-Medical Board. Karnataka.
OR
(o) % of marks secured in PUC + % of marks secured in Lab Technician Course divided by two.
OR
1) Pass in SSLC or possess equivalent qualification & 3 years Diploma in Medical Lab. Technology conducted by Para Medical Board, Karnataka.
(p) % of marks secured in SSLC or equivalent qualification + % of marks secured Diploma course divided by two.
The case of the respondent No. 1 is, that she fulfilled the eligibility qualifications depicted at Sl. No. 3(b) of the Schedule appended to 2006 Rules extracted hereinabove as also the qualifications expressed at Sl. No. (j) contained in the advertisement dated 13.11.2006 also extracted hereinabove.
It is not a matter of dispute that the respondent No. 1 possessed the qualification of SSLC, and as such, to determine her eligibility, one has only to ascertain whether in addition to the aforesaid qualification, she also possessed the qualification of 2 years Diploma in a vocational course in Laboratory Technician. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, that she does not possess the aforesaid qualifications, in as much as, the qualifications possessed by respondent No. 1 is a 2 year course in X-ray Technician/Junior Laboratory Technician Course, and not a vocational course in Laboratory Technician. Secondly, it is submitted, that the qualification possessed by respondent No. 1 has not been certified as a recognised vocational course by the Vocational Board, and as such, the qualifications possessed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted as a valid qualification for determining her eligibility for appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician.
In order to repudiate the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has invited our attention to the certificate possessed by respondent No. 1. The aforesaid certificate was placed on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-C. We have perused the said certificate. The certificate was affirmed under the signatures of the following:
i) Principal of Medical College, Mysore.
ii) Deputy Director of Paramedical Board, Bangalore
iii) Director of Medical Education, Bangalore.
In addition to the aforesaid, our attention was invited to Annexure-L appended to the writ petition, which was issued by the Member Secretary, Paramedical Board on 4.12.2007. The aforesaid certificate reads as under:
WHOM SO EVER CONCERN
This is to certify that Ms. S. Shashikala D/o. Mr. T Sreenivas has successfully completed 2 years Junior Lab Technician Course from Mysore Medical College, Mysore. Now this course is called as Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology and duration is also of 2 years.
Therefore, Junior Lab Technician course can be considered in par with the Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology course for appointment as Junior Lab Technician.
Member Secretary
The first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant can conveniently be disposed of by the documents relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. It cannot be disputed, that the educational qualification acquired by respondent No. 1, namely, two years training course in X-ray technician course/Junior Laboratory Technician has officially been nomenclatured as "Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology". Thus viewed, we have no difficulty in concluding that the qualification possessed by respondent No. 1 is indeed a Diploma qualification in Medical Laboratory Technician i.e. the stipulated qualification prescribed in the 2006 Rules, as also in the advertisement dated 13.11.2006. It also needs to be reiterated here, that the qualification acquired by the respondent No. 1 was from the Medical College, Mysore. The certificate issued to her was authenticated by official functionaries, representing the departments of medical education as also paramedical education, and as such, the same cannot be treated as certificate acquired from an un-recognised private institution.
In so far as the second contention is concerned, that there is no material on the record of this case to demonstrate that the qualification acquired by the respondent No. 1 was duly recognised by the Vocational Board. In fact, we are of the considered view that neither under 2006 Rules nor under the advertisement dated 13.11.2006, was there any such requirement. Our instant conclusion emerges even from the alternative qualification at Sl. No. 3(d) of the schedule of the 2006 Rules, as also at Sl. No. (1) contained in the advertisement dated 13.11.2006, wherein as per the mandate of the rule, the prescribed qualification should have been conducted by the Paramedical Board, Karnataka. In so far as the instant qualification stipulated at Sl. No. 3(b) of the schedule under the 2006 Rules, and at Sl. No. (j) of the advertisement dated 13.11.2006 is concerned, there was no additional requirement, that the aforesaid qualification should have been acquired from any particular authority, or should be affirmed by any particular body or should have been recognised by the Vocational Board. The suggestion that only a two years diploma course in Laboratory Technician, recognised by the Vocational Board would be acceptable/valid for determining the eligibility for appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician, does not commend to us as the appellant desires us to read into the prescribed qualifications, something which was not prescribed/required. The fact, that the certificate produced by the petitioner, had been issued by Governmental authorities (referred to above), in our view, is sufficient to establish its authenticity.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.