Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Parkash And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044129
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:044129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
238
CWP-12811-2019 (O&M)
Decided on :02.04.2024
JAI PARKASH AND OTHERS ......Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioners is that though they are working on post of Ward Servant (Class
IV), but as they fulfill the qualification for promotion to the post of
Laboratory Technician, the petitioners be given relaxation in service rules
so as to promote them to the post of Laboratory Technician as done in the
case of one Ranjit Singh, who was working on Class IV post.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, as per
the rules governing the service, the post of Laboratory Technician is to be
filled up under the Haryana Health Department Laboratory Technician
(Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (for short '1998 Rules) but the petitioners
fulfill the qualification for appointment on the post in question by direct
recruitment hence, the petitioners be promoted by giving the relaxation in
1998 Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044129
CWP-12811-2019 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:044129
promotion to the post of Laboratory Technician, only the Laboratory
Attendant are eligible and not the Ward Servant i.e. the post on which the
petitioners are working and hence, the petitioners be given relaxation in
1998 Rules so as to treat the petitioners eligible for the promotion to the
post of Laboratory Technician as being done in the case of one Ranit Singh
who was given the said relaxation for promotion to the post of Laboratory
Technician.
Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that for
promotion to the post of Laboratory Technician, an employee has to be in the
feeder cadre of Laboratory Attendant and Ward Servant is not the feeder
cadre as envisaged under the 1998 Rules, hence, no promotion can be
claimed by the petitioners.
Learned State counsel further submits that though Ranji Singh
was given relaxation and was promoted but, the said Ranjit Singh was
subsequently selected on the said post of Laboratory Technician by way of
direct recruitment in the year 2010 after being recommended by the
Haryana Staff Selection Commission hence, the petitioners cannot compare
their case with that of Ranjit Singh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
The first question of law which arises is whether, a relaxation
can be claimed as a matter of right.
It is a settled principle of law that a relaxation cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. It is only the prerogative of the department and
that too keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the each case.
Furhter, nothing has come on record that there are no Laboratory Attendants
available for the promotion to the post of Laboratory Technician.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044129
CWP-12811-2019 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:044129
Further in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2250-2252 of 2020 titled as Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and
others v. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh and others etc., decided on 17.04.2020
it has been held that relaxation could not be claimed as matter of right and
eligibility criteria is within the domain of the employer and no candidate
can seek appointment as matter of right and that too by claiming relaxation.
The relevant paragraph No. 14 of the said judgment is as
under:-
"14. The High Court has also noticed that the experience for
eligibility notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016
was not in conformity with the Medical Council of India
Regulations. In reply affidavit filed before the High
Court, while denying such allegation, it was pleaded that
the qualifications and experience, as notified in the
advertisement dated 16.08.2016, was in accordance with
the "Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical
Institutions Regulations, 1998" (as amended from time to
time), framed by the Medical Council of India. It was the
specific contention of the respondent authorities that as
the RIMS is affiliated to [email protected].(C)Nos.15093-
15095 of 2017 etc. Manipur University, the requirement
as prescribed by Medical Council of India for Director of
affiliated hospital should be applied. Such plea is not
accepted by the High Court on the ground that there is no
proper pleading in this regard. A copy of the Regulations
titled as, "Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in
Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998" (as amended
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044129
CWP-12811-2019 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:044129
upto 11th March 2017) issued by the Medical Council of
India is placed before us. As notified in the said
Regulations, the academic qualifications and experience
applicable for the post of Director of medical institutions
differ from those applicable for the post of
Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching
hospital. For the post of Director in a medical institution,
apart from the academic qualifications, ten years'
experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a
medical college, out of which at least five years should be
as Professor in a department, is prescribed. However, for
the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of the
affiliated teaching hospital the required experience is ten
years only. It is the specific case of the respondents that
the RIMS is an affiliated teaching hospital. In view of
such stand of the respondents it cannot be said that the
experience for eligibility notified in the advertisement
dated 16.08.2016 is contrary to the Regulations of
Medical Council of India. So far as relaxation of upper
age limit, as sought by the petitioners in one of the writ
petitions is concerned, High Court has directed the
competent authority and Executive Council of the Society
to consider for providing such relaxation clause. We fail
to understand as to how such direction can
be [email protected].(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017 etc. given
by the High Court for providing a relaxation which is not
notified in the advertisement. While it is open for the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044129
CWP-12811-2019 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:044129
employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when
sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time
nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right.
The eligibility criteria will be within the domain of the
employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right,
to provide relaxation clause."
Hence, the claim of the petitioners that respondents be directed
to grant the relaxation in service rules for promotion to the post of
Laboratory Technician, cannot be accepted.
Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot claim equality with Ranjit
Singh. Though, at one stage Ranjit Singh was given relaxation for
promotion to the post of Laboratory Technician but, as per the reply filed by
the respondents-State, immediately after the promotion by relaxation Ranjit
Singh also competed for the post in question by way of direct recruitment
and was appointed after the recommendation of the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission in the year 2010. That being so, once Ranjit Singh got
appointment by way of direct recruitment, no relaxation can be claimed by
the petitioners on the basis of equality.
It is also a settled principle of law that the posts are to be filled
as per the rules governing the service. Under the Rules governing the service,
for promotion to the post of Laboratory Technician, only the employees
working as Laboratory Attendant are to be treated eligible. The petitioners
are not working in the feeder cadre of Laboratory Attendant as they are
working as a Ward Servant, which is a class IV post, hence, no direction can
be issued to the respondents-State to violate the rules governing the service
so as to grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of Laboratory
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044129
CWP-12811-2019 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:044129
Technician. Only direction can be given in case, it is found that the claim of
the petitioners is squarely covered by the rules governing the service.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
recorded herein above, no ground is made out for any interference by this
Court qua the claim raised by the petitioners in the present petition, hence the
present petition stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
02.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
