IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27'?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2Q10
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF__J§l;il$§fi"i'(§£'§A ~
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUsr1cE ;45§.S'.lB()~}?'i?Xi'\:Ellv\[{l
WRIT APMEAL Nd.l3 y1a55/2'0 1uo{s%-Rnségy"
BETWEEN:
1.
State of Karnataka ' 'E _l ;
Department of Health," '
And Family. V
Anand
Bangalore _ _ V '
Rep. by its':.Secretaryf'-E_' ..
Dirvectorate.'of.,_ E' -- .
Health' and _EafI1i.ly T y it
Welfare Departrheflt '
Rep. by "its 'DirC_ctor " "
Agnand Rad Circle
Bangalore 560 .
3;: petcvial lffionirnittee of Selection
' _ "Arid"Chief~Administrative Officer
' .DireC:.t0rafte of Health and Family Welfare
"'ep.*«l;>y'its Member Secretary.
Government Medical College and
_ V __Research Institute
Mysore
F Rep. by its Director and Dean.
.....Appellants
(By Sn' V.S.Hegde, AGA)
AND:
1. Srnt.Shashika1a S.
Wife of Subramanya C
Aged about 33 years
No.1027, 14"' Cross
2116 Main, Hebbal
Mysore.
2. Para Medical Board
'Lakshmi Compiex'. Isl Floor
No.5, New 1\io.40/20A » _
Opposite Vani Vilas Hospitflalp
Fort, Bangalore 560 002 _ A *
Rep. by its Chajnnan. ...'Rcsp.onder1ts
This Writ Appea1"i_s "filed-"'~under--V--~ Sec.4 of the
Karnataka High"Cou1ft"Actw.'prayirz_g to set aside the order
passed in the Vifrit' Pet_itio1i"No'.41'*1'4/.2008 (S~RES] dated
28.8.2009. " '. i
'1,'his_ "'Writ::,_ .,Appe._al "earning on for further
ConsicIeratio'nj_this, day',~.._CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the
fo1ioMfig'-r4 . S t
"JfipGMENT
, A' J 'C*.J....(0ral)
' ivappeliants issued an advertisement dated
I3.1'f1.2VOt°i5'j_ Vfinviting applications for appointment,
againstiathe post of Junior Laboratory Technician.
'A "XfRe'sp.ondent~1 Shashikala S. responded to the aforesaid
' advertisement, weil before the last date of submission of
if the application forms. It is not a matter of dispute, that
""*'zy'*'~';?3,."...,..3""'tiQ"
,u--u-
during the process of selection, Respondent No.1
secured more marks than the cut-off percentage. In this
behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the’ct1t§off
percentage of marks for Category–IIA _
61.059520/6, whereas, Respondent
66.5%. It is also apparent froni
case, that even though. 532’pVosts”0f
Technician had to be filled__uVp.,:t3e.roug.ht– process of
selection conducted the only 529 posts
came to be filled’ up,-I-t-is1jtheifefei3e oibfiious that three
posts remairiled
if j appointment, consequent
upon .haV:i.ng.,” more than the cut–off
per(j:;en’tage of respondent No.1 approached this
i’:’ce_:1xm jfiiing Writ Petition No.41l4/O8. During the
“‘coarse'”ef’_~p;-eieeedings of the aforesaid writ petition, the
stalficev’—V:ad’o’pted by the appellant herein was, that
rcspondlent no.1 Smtshashikala S. was ineligible for
-l ‘consideration, and as such, could not be offered
“appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory
Technician. Despite the aforesaid stance adopted by the
:r ya
schedule
appellants herein, Writ Petition No.<fil»li4/08 was
allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on
28.8.2009.
3. Through the instant Writ Appeal,
have assailed the order passed_on._28.8.;2C0i§; iifherebyllll
Writ Petition No.4114/08 came to béjaiioxiiedp
4. The only issue which-.Vis subject,’ rnat~te’r”‘of our”
consideration is, whether no;’1–.. fulfills the
conditions of eligibility’ the post
of Junior the course of
hearing, v’t_hle.:>’ap’pellants, invited our
attention” liarnataka Health and
Services (Recruitment to
certain cadre’s]._'{.Sp–elcial Recruitment], Rules, 2006,
relferred to as the 2006 Rules) were
:to..:determine the eligibility for appointment to
th’e__:post .’Cl)llfl.rJ’K:1:.lI1lOI’ Laboratory Technician. The learned
V’-..couns”elV__ll?-for the appellants, accordingly, invited our
ltlattelntion to the schedule appended thereto. The
interalia enumerates the minimum
it qualifications for appointment against the posts
&” regulated by the 2006 Rules, including post of Junior
Laboratory Technician. Clausew3 from the aforesaid
schedule was brought to our notice which isv-‘being
extracted hereunder :
Sl. Category of posts and Mimpmfim Qualifficpamjn –
Teciiiiuiugisiiuid iiaiiie co.u’rse’«
is Junior Laboratory. ‘ ‘
– Technician} p – .~ OR
Rs.3850~100~4450– ” _ f i __
125–5700–l5C–~v7050}-“” Pass in iS.SLC or possess
5 . 1. e~é:1uivalerj_it._ qualification and 2
“a years jvvocatiohal Diploma course
in_LabCratory Technician
OR
“-Eclj “Pass in PUC with Science
subjects and two years Laboratory
Technician Course conducted by
‘ Para–Medicai Board, Karnataka.
Ci”
…… .. Or
Pass in SSLC or possess
equivalent qualification and three
years Diploma in Medical
Laboratory Technologt conducted
by Para-Medical Board,
No Scale of Pay , _v pp _
3 Jr.Medical Pass» PUC witii..ChercVistry and
Laboratory Laboratory Technician training
Kamataka.
= 5. it is the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant that respondent. no.1 did not satisfy any of
the alternative conditions of eligibiiity stipulated for
appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory
Technician. In order to determine the eiigibi1i_t3:V_:of’ithe
respondent, and in order to obviate any .
connection with prescription of qna1ifica–tioirr t.o.th;e”poet ii”
of Junior Laboratory Techniciaz1,’=_wej’Consider it
appropriate to extract hereunder, even thei’aaa1ific.at;ions * . L’
K stipulated in the ad\{ertise;nent.._da,ted .’1″f:’§–..1H1._2:§OO6 (for
appointment agajnstthe. 4ofa.’:t.J,t1nior Laboratory
the adverti3e§11ent.. extracted hereunder :
<3 Technician). The .said:"€1iiaiification appeared in
Method of
Name ofttiie it ; .
A’ Q1.1a1ifiCat101’1 Age Selection
‘ gt Post
(111) Percentage of
marks secured in
PUC + % of
marks in Lab~
GM-
33
1 it 1′} Pass in PUG with
‘I1’-‘9-5’3’71’-“‘*”*”‘ “Chemistry and Lab
Technologist -. h , . Years h .
(Jr Lab Tech)- A Tee mcian training OBC Tee mcian
‘ ‘ ‘ ~t course _36 Course divided
OR Years by two.
OR
cszeiiiie.
7. It is not a matter of dispute that the
respondent no.1 possessed the qualification of SSLC,
and as such, to determine her eligibility, one has
ascertain whether in addition to
o
qualification, she aiso possessed the qualificiatpion of 2 it
years Diploma in a vocationaigcourse in ‘A.Laboifa.torjJA
Technician. It is the submission ofthe iearne§d~.Q,ou.nsel
for the appellants, that possess the
aforesaid qualifications.’ asV,’v’:.:ir1,uch as, the
qualifications 11/”1′($.1 is a 2 year
course , Laboratory
Techni_0ia.n_”:”C:ourIse, vocational course in
Laboratory’ it is submitted, that
theg*ua1ificatio,nV”possessed by respondent no.1 has not
been certified as a recognised vocational course by the
l”V_ocationlal,_ Board, and as such. the qualifications
possessledbly the respondent no.1 cannot be accepted
uasagvalid qualification for determining her eligibility for
‘appointment against the post of Junior Laboratory
Technician.
—–……_.,____
8. In order to repudiate the aforesaid contention,
learned counsel for respondent no.1 has invited our
attention to the certificate possessed by respondent
no.1. The aforesaid certificate was placed _
of the writ petition as Annexure;CV.p_ We yperuseclu ”
the said certificate. The certificate
the signatures of the fo1lowin_gi’~V’
i] Principal of Medicya.llliColiege,
ii) Deputy lléatarnedical Board,
Bangipalorfi H V . _ . . . _.
iii) Bangalore.
In addition_’tol7the_ our attention was invited to
Annexure._–pL itappendpedlll Writ petition, which was
issneed’ by Secretary, Paramedical Board on
aforesaid certificate reads as under:
“WHOM so EVER CONCERN
This is to certify that Ms.S.Shashikala
D / o.Mr.’i’ Sreenivas has successfully
completed 2 years Junior Lab Technician
Course from Mysore Medical College,
Mysore. Now this course is called as Diploma
in Medical Laboratory Technology and
duration is also of 2 years.
….’.”..”%’~
10
Therefore, Junior Lab Technician
course can be considered in par with the
Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technnclogy
course for appointment as Juniorj_Lab
Technician.
Member ‘ 1
9. The first objection raisedlby ft_he:’lear_r1ed
for the appellant can conveniently be –.by–3the 211′
documents relied upon by th.el:learn_edlhcgaitlselfi for the
respondent no.1. It that the
educational qu;a1ifi.cat§.on ..Zrespondent no. 1,
namely, tvsfd inlX–ray technician
course;’JuniVorT’1lec’hni’cian has officially been
in Medical Laboratory
‘1’echnologly”.l ” We have no difficulty in
—- —the qualification possessed by
.__respondent'”‘u_o’;–“1 is indeed a Diploma qualification in
.lLa_boratory Technician i.e. the stipulated
V’-».qualific,ation prescribed in the 2006 Rules, as also in
“”ltiie_ advertisement dated 13.11.2006. It also needs to be
_pV_r_e-iterated here, that the qualification acquired by the
1′ respondent no.1 was from the Medical College, Mysore.
11
The certificate issued to her was authenticated by
official functionaries, representing the departments of
medical education as also paramedical educatio,n,*~.an_d
as such, the same cannot be treated _
acquired from an un–recognised private incsti’tu.t.ion;- ” _
10. In so far as second .cor1tentiQI1–‘ is 2 L’
concerned, that there, is on record of
this case to demonstrate’ acquired
by the respondjelit by the
Vocational considered View
that .._.,.g2d1es nor under the
advertisernent Was there any such
requirement Our i._r1s~tan.tconclusion emerges even from
~”<,,.'theftEtilterriative'qualification at Sl.No. 3(d} of the
c_lschle'd11:ie:_:oi" ..::tl'ifE: 2006 Rules, as also at Sl.No. (1)
coiitaine.d"li:'in}; the advertisement dated 13.11.2006,
l3"~'«.__'V'~».whereinV'_las per the mandate of the rule, the prescribed
av."Vlq'uali'i'ication should have been conducted by the
__Paramedical Board, Karnataka. in so far as the instant
it qualification stipulated at Sl.No. 3{b} of the schedule
12
under the 2006 Rules, and at Si.No.(j) of the
advertisement dated 13.ii.2006 is concerned, there
was no additional requirement, that the
qualification shouid have been acquired
particular authority, ‘br should be affi.r1’ne:dj. «anyr
particular body or should have b.een:-Arreicdgnirsedédby-»i1*i+:;ii
Vocational Board. The suggest-i.on on1y’Va’tjw.oVVye3ars
diploma course in Laboratory_fii’ec:hnician; by
the Vocational Board””–tyoui.d’ ‘4″‘ai’cceptabie/valid for
determining thgifiuigibiilityh. against the
post of does not
commend..to:”u_s’ desires us to read into
the “something which was not
prescribeddd/«required.’;_ ” Tile fact, that the certificate
by ——– petitioner, had been issued by
_Go\ferninen,tai_’ authorities (referred to above), in our
viettc is suxfficient to establish its authenticity.
13
1 1. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, We find
no merit in this appeai and the same is accordingly
dismissed. Vv
Chief _
Sk/–
Index: yes/no