Dismissed

Mohd. Arif and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2022CWP/11867/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the declaration that petitioners were unsuccessful for medical officer posts. The court examined recruitment criteria regarding local area weightage and residency. The petitioners claimed entitlement to extra interview marks under the residency rules. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the claim misplaced and the selection criteria clear.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd. Arif and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CWP No. 11867 of 2017

¶2

203

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11867 of 2017 DATE OF DECISION : 11.11.2022

¶5

Mohd. Arif and others …Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶9

Present : Mohd. Arshad, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

Ms. Shalini Atri, Advocate, For respondents No.6, 7, 10 and 11.

¶12

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petition herein, inter alia , is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari seeking to quash the final result declared on the website, whereby petitioners were declared unsuccessful for the posts of Ayush Medical Officers of National Mission Management Unit, Rashtriya Kishor Swasthya Karyakram and Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram.

¶14

The grounds of challenge qua the private respondents by the petitioners herein is substantially based on an averment that the private respondents are not residents of Mewat where Ayush Medical Officers are to be posted after selection. It is pleaded and so as it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the same pattern, the petitioners

¶15

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.11.24 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

CWP No. 11867 of 2017

¶18

are entitled to additional weightage in the interview marks which benefit

¶19

has not been accorded to them.

¶20

For better appreciation of controversy at hand, the criteria for selection which has been appended at Annexure P-4 is reproduced herein below:

¶21

05. Thereafter, following selection criteria for recruitment of staff on contractual basis under NRHM should be adopted with immediate effect :-

¶22

		Weight	Marking pattern
1.	Basic qualification	25	25x percentage 100
2.	Additional qualification such as higher degree in same discipline or Public health or Management degree.	05	05x Percentage 100
3.	Relevant Post qualification Experience (Government/Semi	07	01 marks for each completed year
	Government only)
4.	NRHM experience	03	01 mark for each completed year
5.	Proficiency tests such as tally for accounts personals/relevant tests for other staff (not required for Doctor & Class IV employee)	15
6.	Computer skill tests (it should be compulsory for all staff since computer knowledge is must)	10
7.	Local area weightage	20	Residence in PHC area-20 Residence in CHC area-15 Residence in District-10
			Out of District- 0
8.	Interview	15
	*Total*	*100*

¶23

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.11.24 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

CWP No. 11867 of 2017

¶26

Perusal of Clause 7 and 8 herein above clearly reflects that a total of 20 marks have been assigned for local area weightage of which a candidate being a resident of Primary Health Centre area is entitled to 20/20 while the one belonging to Community Health Centre area would get 15 marks. Likewise, the one being resident of District where the recruitment is to be made would be entitled to 10 marks, while those out of district will get zero. The next criteria of interview does not have the said split-up. It needs no gain saying that marks are given purely on the basis of performance and not on the basis of belonging to particular area. Therefore, the claim for additional marks of interview on which the entire reliance is placed by the petitioners is misplaced and based on wrong interpretation of the selection criteria.

¶27

In the premise, no ground for interference by this Court is

¶28

made out.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

NOVEMBER 11, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) Shalini JUDGE

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.11.24 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

CWP No. 11867 of 2017

¶35

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.11.24 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Mohd. Arif and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd. Arif and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Suraj Bhan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Pinki Devi Vs Director General of Punjab and Another

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Neelam Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others