Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 474 (JK)

Urmila Kumari v. State

2017-07-27

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : The Vice Chairman, District Health Society, Samba, herein respondent No. 5, issued Advertisement Notice No. 02 of 2012 dated 31.08.2012 inviting applications inter alia for recruitment on contractual basis of a Lab. Technician in the said Society. The minimum qualification for the said post in this notice was prescribed as :- “Two years course (Lab. Tech.) from the institution recognized by the J&K Medical Faculty”. 2. The petitioner applied for this post and after completion of the selection process, she was selected and her services on contractual basis were hired vide Order No. CMO/S/NRHM/431-34 dated 02.02.2013. By a subsequent order dated 04.02.2013, respondent No.5, however, withdrew the petitioner’s selection for the reason that after scrutinizing the documents produced by her it was observed that the documents are not recognized by the State Medical Faculty, J&K. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner primarily seeks quashing of Order dated 04.02.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits and points out that the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) is a Central Sponsored Scheme and for the purpose of engaging/recruiting the staff for running the Scheme, Service Rules applicable for recruitment and appointment in the Health Department of the State are adopted as provision in this regard are not contained in the Scheme itself. Learned counsel pointed out further that under the Jammu and Kashmir Health and Medical (Subordinate Service Recruitment) Rules, 1992 (for short, the Rules of 1992), the qualification for the post of Lab Technician is provided as:- “Matric with Diploma in Lab. Assistant Training Course from SMF or any other recognized Institute.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the Diploma Certificate on the basis whereof petitioner sought her selection and was selected was not recognized by the State Medical Faculty but it has been issued by a recognized institute so in terms of the qualification criteria provided under the Rules of 1992 she possesses the requisite qualification even though her diploma is not recognized by the State Medical Faculty. 5. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, did not deny the contention of the petitioner that recruitment of the staff for hiring for running the purpose of aforementioned Scheme is governed by the aforementioned Rules. 5. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, did not deny the contention of the petitioner that recruitment of the staff for hiring for running the purpose of aforementioned Scheme is governed by the aforementioned Rules. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General admitted at bar the variance between the qualification for the post of Lab Technician as provided under the Rules of 1992 and that given in the advertisement notice. It is noticed that in the Advertisement Notice the only qualification provided was two years Course (Lab. Technician) from the Institution recognized by the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Faculty, whereas the qualification provided under the Rules, alternatively includes a diploma in Lab Technician Training from any other recognized institute, besides diploma from an institution recognized by the State Medical Faculty. Respondent No.4, therefore, has fallen in error by not prescribing the eligibility criteria in accordance with the Rules of 1992 in the Advertisement Notice. 6. For the aforementioned, without setting aside the selection process, the impugned withdrawal order dated 04.02.2013 is set aside and respondents (competent Authority) are directed to access the eligibility of the petitioner in terms of the qualification criteria provided in the Rules of 1992 and issue appointment order in her favour, if she possesses the requisite qualification as per the Rules, also having regard to her comparative merit. Disposed of.