The Court dismissed petitions challenging the selection criteria for Multipurpose Health Worker posts. It held that excluding Matric marks and considering only Diploma marks was reasonable, arbitrary, and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
| Date of Decision :August 11, 2010 |
|
|---|---|
| 1. |
Civil Writ Petition No.12237 of 2007 |
| Rajinder Singh & Another | .....PETITIONER(S) |
| VERSUS | |
| State of Punjab & Others | .....RESPONDENT(S) |
| . . . | |
| 2. |
Civil Writ Petition No.14487 of 2007 |
| Jasvir Singh & Others | .....PETITIONER(S) |
| VERSUS | |
| State of Punjab & Others | .....RESPONDENT(S) |
| . . . | |
| 3. |
Civil Writ Petition No.5195 of 2007 |
| Neeraj Kumar & Others | .....PETITIONER(S) |
| VERSUS | |
| State of Punjab & Others | .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . |
CWP No.12237 of 2007 [2]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
None for the remaining respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
_<u>Rajinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others</u>_ ’; _Civil Writ Petition No.14487 of 2007_ titled Jasvir Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others ’; and Civil Writ Petition No.5195 of 2007 titled ` Neeraj Kumar & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others ’ as they involve common question of law and facts.CWP No.12237 of 2007 [3]
appointments to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) made by respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, in pursuance of advertisement/ public notice dated 1.9.2006 (Annexure P-1).
CWP No.12237 of 2007 [4]
has been violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been asserted that once the respondents have prescribed the minimum qualification for selection and appointment, the respondents were required to take into account the marks obtained/ secured by the candidates in Matric also. The respondents have not taken into account the marks secured by the petitioners in Matriculation examination.
considering the nature of service/ work to be taken from a Multipurpose Health Worker, weightage has been given to the marks obtained by the candidates in Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker only. The criteria thus adopted is reasonable.
CWP No.12237 of 2007 [5]
that all the candidates were subjected to the same criteria and therefore, there has been no discrimination.
of learned counsel.
CWP No.12237 of 2007 [6]
Worker; as also, in Punjabi at the Matriculation level. The respondents have adopted a criteria for selection while providing for consideration of marks in Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker only.
for the respondent-State to the effect that considering the nature of work to be taken from these workers, suitability has been judged only on the basis of marks obtained by candidates in Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker, cannot be said to be without basis. To be appointed to the
post, Diploma in Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) has been provided as the main qualification which relates to the task to be performed by the worker. In such circumstances, in the wisdom of the respondents, suitability has been adjudged on the basis of marks obtained in the Diploma. The criteria adopted cannot be termed as arbitrary, irrational, irrelevant or unreasonable. On the judicial side, unless the criteria adopted is arbitrary and dehors the issue, no interference is called for. The employer ordinarily is the best person/authority to take a decision in such regards. Judicial review of the decision taken by the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is
CWP No.12237 of 2007 [7]
not called for. Criteria adopted for subsequent selections would have no bearing on the selection made under the advertisement/ Public Notice at issue in this case.
dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA) August 11, 2010 JUDGE avin
CWP No.12237 of 2007 [8]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the selection criteria excluding Matriculation marks for multipurpose health workers violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the employer could adopt a reasonable suitability test considering only Diploma marks without mandating consideration of Matric marks.
Rajinder Singh & Another
Jasvir Singh & Others
Neeraj Kumar & Others
State of Punjab & Others
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court