Telangana High Court
Earla Lakshminarayana vs The Telangana State Public Service ... on 24 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.16274 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not considering certificate of two years experience as Battle Field Nursing Assistant at 316 Field Hospital C/O 56 APO in Military as Experience Certificate for awarding 8 marks to the petitioner for the post of ANM/MPHA (F) in the Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad in pursuance to the Notification No.05/2018, dated 25.01.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 as well as treating the petitioner as not qualified in the qualifying examination on the ground that the petitioner got only 39.612% of marks instead of treating the 39.612% of marks as 40% of marks in spite of objection submitted by the petitioner on 06.01.2022 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently directing the respondents forthwith considering the petitioner as ANM/MPHA (F) in Bhadradri Kothagudem (erstwhile Khammam) District against the vacancy earmarked for Ex-serviceman treating the petitioner as eligible and qualified in the Nursing Assistant at 316 Field Hospital C/O 56 APO in Military as experience and he is eligible to get 8 additional marks or treating 39.612% of marks as 40% of marks for selection to the post of of ANM/MPHA (F) in the Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad in pursuance to the Notification No.05/2018, dated 25.01.2018 with all consequential benefits and pass..."
2. Heard Sri A. Phani Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Telangana State Public Service Commission, Sri S. Vijay Prashanth, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, learned Government Pleader for Services on behalf of respondent No.3, and Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2
PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, belonging to BC-D community, completed his Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology in 1992 and had worked as a Battlefield Nursing Assistant at 316 Field Hospital C/o. 56 APO in Military Hospital. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued an employment notification for the post of ANM/MPHA (F) vide Notification No.05/2018 dated 25.01.2018, and as the petitioner was eligible under the Ex-Serviceman Quota, he applied for the post, appeared in the written examination on 17.04.2018 with Hall Ticket bearing No.1805018007 and performed well in the written examination. He further submits that according to the said notification, written examination carried 70 marks weightage, and the remaining 30 marks are for the experience. While so, after conducting the examination, respondent No.1 issued a Web Note on 04.08.2021 extending the time until 18.08.2021 for approval of Service and Educational certificates, and the petitioner has submitted his qualification and experience certificates. Thereafter, on 30.12.2021, respondent No.1 uploaded a list of qualification weightage and service weightage marks of the candidates, calling for objections, if any, in the form of representations, from 31.12.2021 to 13.01.2022. In the said list, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.3781 and based on his uploaded certificates, 10 marks are allotted for qualification, but 0 marks were allotted under service weightage, resulting in a total of 3 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 39.612% of marks. Learned counsel contends that the respondents did not consider the petitioner's experience at the Military Hospital and did not add any marks for the same. Moreover, the petitioner is the only candidate eligible for appointment under Ex-Serviceman Quota in the erstwhile Khammam District. The minimum marks for selection are 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SC/ST/PH candidates, which can be relaxed in the case of SC/ST/PH/BC candidates, at the discretion of the Commission.
4. He further submits that in response to the Web Note issued by respondent No.1 on 30.12.2021, the petitioner submitted his objections in the form of a representation dated 06.04.2022, stating that he was employed as a Battle Field Assistant at the 316 Field Hospital C/o. 56 APO from 15.03.2004 to 24.03.2006. He further submits that respondent No.1 released a provisional list of candidates selected for certificate verification in 1:3 ratio, on 21.03.2022, with the verification process scheduled to take place between 26.03.2022 and 01.04.2022. However, despite the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2022, the petitioner's name was not included in the said list on the ground that he had not secured the minimum qualifying marks. Hence, the action of respondents is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further contends that the 4 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 petitioner is losing an opportunity to work in respondent No.2 institution as a result of the failure on the part of the respondents to consider the services of the petitioner rendered in the Military Hospital. Furthermore, the petitioner belongs to BC-D community and the minimum qualifying marks for BC candidates are 35%, irrespective of the same, as the petitioner secured 39.612% of marks, the respondents ought to have considered his candidature under the Ex-Serviceman category since there is no suitable candidate to fill-up the said vacancy under Ex-Serviceman Quota. Furthermore, the respondents should have qualified the petitioner, by exercising the powers under Clause-1 of Para VIII of their Notification, by treating the 39.612% of marks secured by the petitioner as that of 40% of marks.
5. Learned counsel further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court passed an order in W.P.No.1936 of 2019 dated 06.01.2020, wherein, it was held that when there are no qualified and eligible candidates, the Public Service Commission can consider by rounding-off the qualifying marks on a higher side to qualify the petitioner therein for appointment. The said order was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2021 in W.A.No.96 of 2021. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass appropriate orders in 5 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 the present writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following:
1. The decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and Anr., v.
Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors. 1; Raj Kumar Khaitan and Ors. v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun and Anr. 2 and The Telangana State Public Service Commission v. P. Maheshwari and Ors.3,
2. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Mallesh Korukoru v. The State of Telangana 4, and an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.44132 of 2017 dated 06.09.2022.
3. The decision of the Madras High Court in The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training and Ors. v. Joseph Chellamuthu Teacher Training Institute 5.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that according to Notification No.05/2018 dated 25.01.2018, the required qualifications for the post of ANM/MPHA (F) are SSC or its equivalent examination, MPHW (F) Training course conducted by the Government of Telangana or Andhra Pradesh, and registration with the Telangana or Andhra Pradesh Nursing Council. He further submits that the petitioner possesses the qualification of one-year Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology. Further, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in the present writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to appear for certificate verification process. While 1 (2005) 2 SCC 10 2 (1997) 11 SCC 411 3 Order dated 01.04.2022 in SLA(C) No.5233 of 2022 4 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1073 5 2009 LawSuit(Mad) 631 6 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 verifying his certificates, it was noticed that he is possessing one-year Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology, which is not the prescribed qualification in the notification as per G.O.Ms.No.166, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department dated 09.09.2017, and as per the said Notification, a candidate is required to possess the qualification of MPHW (F) Training conducted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh or Telangana. However, due to non-fulfillment of the requisite qualification, his candidature was rejected.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 09.09.2017, service weightage marks are awarded by respondent No.1 only to the contractual staff working in Heatlh, Medical and Family Welfare Department. However, according to the District Sainik Welfare Service Certificate uploaded by the petitioner, he had rendered his services in the Military Hospital, but he was never a contractual employee of the Government. Therefore, the question of adding the service weightage marks does not arise.
8. He further submits that in compliance of the interim order of this Court dated 08.07.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022, respondent No.1 has kept one post vacant in Khammam District and has published the final list of provisionally selected candidates on 15.07.2022, and as the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification prescribed for the said post, he is 7 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 not eligible for appointment. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned Standing Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Public Service Commission and Anr., v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr., 6 and The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar 7.
9. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and perused the material on record.
10. The record discloses that respondent No.1 issued Notification No.05/2018 on 25.01.2018 inviting application for the qualified and eligible candidates for the post of ANM/MPHA (F) in Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Department. The said notification specifies that the education qualifications were prescribed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.166, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 09.09.2017, and the said educational qualifications are extracted hereunder:
a) Must have passed SSC or Equivalent Examination;
6 (2011) 8 SCC 108 7 Interim order dated 31.10.2022 in SLA(C) No.17914 of 2022 8 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022
b) Must have passed MPHW (F) Training course, conducted by Government of AP/Telangana
c) Must have registered with the AP/Telangana Nursing Council
11. A close reading of the abovementioned education qualifications would make it abundantly clear that the only qualification prescribed for the post of ANM/MPHA (F) is MPHW (F) Training Course offered by the Government of Telangana/Andhra Pradesh, and there is no mention of any equivalent qualification either in the Notification or in G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 09.09.2017. Admittedly, the petitioner graduated from the College of Medical Technology, Ongole, in August 1996 after completing one-year Diploma Course in Public Health and Sanitation Technology.
12. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copies of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 23.01.2008, Memo No.21511/J2/ 2007-3 dated 27.02.2009, G.O.Rt.No.273 dated 16.02.2012 and also Memo No.10397/J2/2004 dated 16.02.2012 to demonstrate that in similar circumstances, the Government has passed orders to issue a fresh list of selected candidates for the post of MPHA (M) pursuant to Notification of 2002, by including the names of all those candidates who possessed an SSC certificate and obtained a Diploma certificate either from the Government Institutions or any of the four private Institutions, including the College of Medical Technology, prior before 05.07.2002. 9
PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 However, the notification of 2002 was not produced to show the educational qualification criteria prescribed therein. Furthermore, it is important to note that this Court does not find any fault with the Diploma Certificate of the petitioner.
13. Here, it is pertinent to note that, as per the present Notification No.05/2018, the candidates are eligible for the post of ANM/MPHA (F) only if they possess an MPHW (F) Training certificate issued by the Government of Telangana or Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly, the petitioner does not meet the educational requirement specified in the aforesaid notification, and instead possesses one-year Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology. As such, it can be construed that the petitioner has not fulfilled the prescribed educational criteria to be considered for the post of ANM/MPHA (F). Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the decision of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.
14. In view of this factual position, this Court is not inclined to deal with the additional issues raised in the present writ petition regarding award of service weightage marks and the rounding of 39.612% of marks secured by the petitioner to that of 40% of marks. As such, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to him. Furthermore, since there is no challenge to the Notification itself, this 10 PK,J W.P.No.16274 of 2022 Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to fill-up the post of ANM/MPHA (F) left vacant in Khammam District, strictly in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date: 24.06.2024.
GSP