Dismissed

S. Balamurugan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC18 Nov 2024WP(MD)/6014/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners holding a one-year Certificate in Medical Laboratory Technology sought appointment as Laboratory Technician Grade-II, challenging the Government's rejection order relying on prior DMLT-based appointments. The court held CMLT is not equivalent to the two-year Diploma and noted a Division Bench had already decided the issue; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

S. Balamurugan Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014 and MP(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2014

¶7

1.S. Balamurugan 2.N.Navaneetha Krishnan

¶8

3.N.Nageswari 4.R.Murugan 5.D.Joshuva Jebakumar 6.S.Wilson David 7.N.Pushpa Bensihar 8.G.Gajendran ... Petitioners

¶9

¶10

1.State of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶11

2.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

¶13

1/8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶16

Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his Letter No. 45722/C2/2013-1 dated 20.03.2014 and also on the file of the second respondent in his Proc.L.Dis No.5298/PME/3/2013 dated 13.03.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician Grade-II on the basis of their CMLT Grade-1 qualification and appoint them to the said post with all monetary and service benefits with effect from the date of appointment given to the candidates of DMLT qualification, who have completed the course after the petitioner in the light of the order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the Director of Medical Education in his Proc.L.Dis.No. 91420/PME/3/2012, dated 24.12.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.993, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 31.08.2009.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners, who possess the qualification of ''Certificate in Medial Laboratory Technology'' have approached the respondents with a request to appoint them to the post of

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

2/8

¶22

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶23

''Laboratory Technician Grade-II'' and filed a writ petition in WP(MD) No.3076 of 2013 that they are having one year Diploma course of certificate offered by King Institute, Guindy that they are eligible for the appointment to the post of ''Laboratory Technician Grade-II''. This Court, by order dated 11.11.2013, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on its merits. Accordingly, the Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department/the first respondent vide, impugned order No. 45722/C2/2013-1, dated 20.03.2014, rejected the request of these petitioners that they are not entitled for appointment to the post of ''Laboratory Technician Grade-II'' with the one year certificate course, which they have obtained from King Institution, Guindy and the same is under challenge in this writ petition with consequential relief to consider the case of these petitioners for the appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician Grade-II, based on their qualification of ''Certificate in Medial Laboratory Technology'', in the light of the orders passed by the Director of Medical Education in his proceedings in Proc.L.Dis.No.91420/PME/3/2012, dated

¶24

3/8

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶27

24.12.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.993, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 31.08.2009.

¶28

2.Today(18.11.2024), when this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on either side submits that the issue is no longer res integra and it has already been decided by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD) No.68 of 2010, dated 08.02.2010, wherein, this Court has held as under:-

¶29

"7. Therefore, the position of the State is very clear. The order of the learned Single Judge cannot be understood as a direction to do something contrary to Law and in particular the special Rule and the relevant Government Orders. It can only be understood to mean that if there are still vacancies remaining after appointing the DMLT candidates, then the CMLT candidates could be considered. The clarification dated 07.01.2008 also makes the position clear. There is no discrimination or injustice since it is clear that the DMLT candidates undergo two years course, whereas the CMLT candidates undergo one year course. They are not equals to claim parity. The Government has also provided for

¶30

4/8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶33

appointment for the CMLT candidates, which is Laboratory Technician Grade III."

¶34

3.It is also clarified in G.O(Ms)No.39, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, dated 05.02.2007 that

¶35

''A Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology Course (two years duration) conducted by the King Institute of Preventive Medicine or from any other Institution recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu for this purpose. Provided that, if candidates with the above qualification are not available, candidates with Certificate in Medical Laboratory Technology (one year) duration conducted by the Institution recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu for this purpose may be appointed.''

¶36

4.Since ''Certificate in Medial Laboratory Technology (one year course)'' obtained by the petitioners is not equivalent to ''Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (two years course), the petitioners cannot ask for an appointment as a matter of right, by possessing the qualification of one year Certificate Course in Medial

¶37

5/8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶40

Laboratory Technology. More over, the issue has already been decided by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court as stated supra. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶41

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶42

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶43

18.11.2024

¶44

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes vrn

¶45

6/8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶48

¶49

1.The Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat,

¶50

Chennai-9.

¶51

2.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶52

7/8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014

¶55

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶56

vrn

¶57

Order made in W.P(MD)No.6014 of 2014 and MP(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2014

¶58

18.11.2024 (1/2)

¶59

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S. Balamurugan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S. Balamurugan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Correspondent Vs Pugalenthi

A.Kanagaraj Vs Shakeel AKther Ips,(Retired)

Prakash.M Vs The Director / Commissioner of technical education

Karthikeyan.M Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation

Mariselvam.K Vs The Director of Backward Class Welfare

A.R.Senthil Kumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by