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.
PK,J
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
PK,J
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
PK,J
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
PK,J
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
PK,J
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
PK,J
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
PK,J
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.
PK,J
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
PK,J
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
