Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 34 (HP)

Jyoti Verma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2012-01-11

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner, by means of this petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Child Psychologist in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. She has further prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as Child Psychologist being the only eligible candidate for the said post. 2. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that earlier also the petitioner had filed two petitions being CWP No. 3890 of 2009 and CWP No. 3539 of 2009, pertaining to the appointment to the posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. Respondent No. 5 in the present petition was respondent No. 4 in the earlier petitions and the allegation was that the private respondent did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. This Court found that both the petitioner and private respondent possessed the requisite academic qualifications. The only dispute was with experience. The petitioners experience was in the blood bank where she has been working as Counsellor. On the other hand, the private respondent was working as Clinical Psychologist in the District Disability Rehabilitation Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. The stand of the Rogi Kalyan Samiti was that none of the candidates possessed the requisite experience and hence a decision was taken to relax the qualifications in the matter of experience. This Court found that the selection committee was not entitled to relax the essential qualification of experience and held this action illegal. 3. As far as the second post of Clinical Psychologist was concerned, it was found that the private respondent had been awarded Ph.D. degree only in 2008 and therefore did not possess three years teaching experience after obtaining the Ph.D. degree. Therefore, the petitions were allowed and the Rogi Kalyan Samiti was directed to take steps for fresh selection to the two posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist. The private respondents were permitted to continue on ad hoc basis till the process of section was completed. 4. This judgment was passed on 13th May, 2010 and thereafter the Rogi Kalyan Samiti invited fresh applications for the posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist vide advertisement issued on 14.6.2010. It was directed that walk-in-interviews would be held on 24.6.2010. The private respondents were permitted to continue on ad hoc basis till the process of section was completed. 4. This judgment was passed on 13th May, 2010 and thereafter the Rogi Kalyan Samiti invited fresh applications for the posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist vide advertisement issued on 14.6.2010. It was directed that walk-in-interviews would be held on 24.6.2010. The requisite qualifications and experience as depicted in the advertisement is as follows:- Sr. No Name of Post No of Posts Essential Qualifications Contractual Salary 1. Child Psychologist 1 1. Post Graduate Degree in Psychology. 2. Phd. In Psychology from a recognized Indian University or from a recognized Foreign University as such recognized by the University Grant Commission. 3. Three years teaching/ research/work experience in the field after obtaining Ph.D Degree Rs. 7220+DP( fixed) 2. Clinical Psychologist 1. 1. Post Graduate qualification i.e. Master Degree (Psychology). 2. Ph.D in the subject concerned/allied subject of an Indian University or its equivalent Ph.D Degree from a Foreign University recognized as such by the University Grant Commission. 3. Three years teaching and or research experience in the discipline subject concerned after obtaining Ph.D. Degree. Rs. 7220+DP (fixed) 5. The interviews were held and thereafter respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Child Psychologist and the petitioner was found to be not eligible. 6. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the selection of respondent No. 5. The petitioner contends that she has wrongly been held to be ineligible and she possessed the requisite qualifications and experience for being considered to the post of Child Psychologist. The petitioner did her Post Graduation in Psychology in 1996, post Graduate Diploma in Guidance and Counselling in 1997 and was awarded Ph.D. degree on the thesis of Counselling of High School Institutionalized Children in the year 2006. Thereafter she had obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Psychology in 2008. The petitioner submits that she had worked as Counsellor in the Drug De-addiction Centre "DOST" in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla run by an NGO from May 1997 to June 1999. According to her she was voluntarily associated with the Indian Branch of US based International NGO Himalayan Health Exchange as a Volunteer Child Psychologist and she has relied upon the certificates issued by various organizations. 7. According to her she was voluntarily associated with the Indian Branch of US based International NGO Himalayan Health Exchange as a Volunteer Child Psychologist and she has relied upon the certificates issued by various organizations. 7. This Court is mainly concerned with the teaching/research/work experience in the field after obtaining Ph.D. degree because the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner did not have experience in the field of Child Psychology. The only certificate which relates to the period after the grant of Ph.D. degree is the certificate issued by the Himalayan Health Exchange, which states that the petitioner worked in various child health projects as a Volunteer Child Psychologist since February 2001. This certificate was issued on 1.5.2009. The State Social Welfare Board also issued a certificate that the petitioner worked as Counsellor in the H.P. State Social Welfare Board w.e.f. 18.5.2005 to 11.7.2007. The main certificate relied upon by the petitioner is the certificate of the Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Immunohaematology & Blood Transfusion, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, according to which the petitioner worked in the said department as Counsellor since 11th July, 2007 and had participated in various blood donation camps and had motivated the blood donors. The petitioner also alleges that due to the fact that she had filed the earlier two petitions, the respondents had got annoyed and in the walk-in-interview respondent No. 4 Dr. Ravi Sharma had shouted at the petitioner and had asked her irrelevant questions and had even questioned the authority of this Court. 8. Keeping in view the serious allegations leveled against respondent No. 4, which had been denied by him, this Court had directed that the other members of the Committee i.e. Dr. S.N. Ghosh and Dr. Kashmir Singh, should file their replies to the allegations made by the petitioner in para 18 of the petition. Dr. S.N. Ghosh, who is the Chairman, Department of Psychology, H.P. University filed his affidavit totally denying the allegations and stated that none of the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 was correct. Dr. Kashmir Singh also filed a similar affidavit. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of Dr. S.N. Ghosh. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit stating that Dr. Dr. Kashmir Singh also filed a similar affidavit. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of Dr. S.N. Ghosh. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit stating that Dr. Kashmir Singh alongwith the Chairman of the Rogi Kalayan Samiti had illegally adjusted the wife of respondent No. 4 as Medical Social Worker by ousting one Ms. Babli Joshi. Even if the affidavit of Dr. Kashmir Singh is not taken into consideration there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of Dr. S.N. Ghosh. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the allegations of the petitioner do not appear to be correct at all and therefore, the allegations that the respondents acted in a mala fide manner are dismissed as being devoid of any merit whatsoever. 9. The only question is whether the petitioner fulfills the experience criteria for being appointed as Child Psychologist or not. According to the respondents, the experience of the petitioner as Counsellor in the blood bank cannot be considered as complete and relevant either for the post of Child Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. It may again be reiterated that as per the advertisement the experience gained after the Ph.D. degree has to be taken into consideration. The stand of the respondents is that her experience as Counsellor in the blood bank was not found to be relevant or complete for either of the two posts. It would also be pertinent to mention that the post of Clinical Psychologist was not filled up since according to the respondents none of the applicants was found eligible. 10. Coming to the experience of respondent No. 5, the case set up by her is that she has been working as Clinical Psychologist in the District Disability Rehabilitation Centre (DDRC) IGMC, Shimla since 1st December, 2004. It appears that respondent No. 5 also obtained a degree in Ph.D. in 2006. She has worked as Clinical Psychologist in District Disability Rehabilitation Centre of the IGMC and Hospital since 1st December, 2004 till 5th September, 2009. She was also appointed as Clinical Psychologist on part time basis on 26.12.2008 for a period of 11 months. She also taught some students of diploma in Speech and Hearing in the Department of ENT, IGMC, Shimla. She was also appointed as Clinical Psychologist on part time basis on 26.12.2008 for a period of 11 months. She also taught some students of diploma in Speech and Hearing in the Department of ENT, IGMC, Shimla. There is no doubt that as far as Ph.D. research work of the petitioner is concerned, it is directly related to child psychology since her thesis was on Counselling of High School Institutionalized Children. However, her post Ph.D. experience in the blood bank cannot be said to be experience in Child Psychology. No doubt, her experience with Himalayan Health Exchange as Volunteer Child Psychologist may be with children but it is not clear what was the amount of activity and how many people she interacted within the India Himalyan Health Exchange. 11. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid a great emphasis on the fact that in the earlier writ petitions and in the earlier selection, the respondents had given full marks to the petitioner for her experience with the Himalayan Health Exchange Programme, etc. That may be true but whether her work as Counsellor in the blood bank has direct relations with child psychology is a matter which only experts could decide and it cannot be said that the opinion of the experts in this behalf is perverse or against the law. The petitioner has made rather reckless allegations against the members of the Committee and if her version is to be believed then the whole world had conspired against her. Even if we accept her version that some of the members of the Selection Committee wanted to help respondent No. 5 whose husband is a doctor, there is no reason why Dr. S.N. Ghosh doctor would have filed an affidavit not supporting the petitioner. The selection committee found that respondent No. 5 had the requisite experience and this finding again cannot be said to be perverse. Respondent No. 5 was admittedly working in the DDRC which is related to rehabilitation of the disabled persons including small children. Here child psychology will definitely comes into play. The version of the petitioner is that in the blood bank also she has to deal with the children. This may only be partly correct. Blood donors are never children. Blood donors are adults or at least above the age of 16. Here child psychology will definitely comes into play. The version of the petitioner is that in the blood bank also she has to deal with the children. This may only be partly correct. Blood donors are never children. Blood donors are adults or at least above the age of 16. Motivating blood donors cannot be said to be experience in child psychology. There is nothing on record to show that while working in the blood bank, the petitioner has actually worked with small children and has counselled them or has done some work which can be related to clinical or child psychology. 12. The Selection Committee has taken a decision which cannot be said to be perverse or wrong. The allegations of mala fide in my opinion are totally incorrect and false. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.