Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

INDERJIT SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Inderjit Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-10244-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4015 (12 July 2006)

CWP NO.10244 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.10244 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 13.07.2006

Inderjit Singh and others Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRAN ANAND LALL

PRESENT: Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

The claim of the petitioners is for consideration for appointment as Ophthalmic Officers in furtherance of the advertisement/public notice dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P10). This claim of the petitioners is, according to the pleadings, not being accepted by the respondents, on account of the fact that the petitioners do not possess the qualification of 10 +2 in the Science stream with Biology as one of the subjects.

For substantiating their claim, the petitioners vehemently contend that the basic qualification for appointment to the post of Ophthalmic Officer is two years diploma course in 'Ophthalmic Assistant' from any recognised Institute. It is submitted that since the petitioners possess the aforesaid qualification, their claim should be considered for appointment to the post under reference. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 10 + 2 qualification without any CWP NO.10244 OF 2006 2

further stipulation was prescribed as the eligibility condition for undergoing the two years diploma course in 'Ophthalmic Assistant' . When the petitioners qualified the same in the year 1988 they should be deemed to be fully qualified for appointment to the posts under reference. It is, therefore, submitted that the insistence by the respondents that the candidates for appointment to the post of Ophthalmic Officer must possess qualification of 10 + 2 in the science stream with Biology as one of the subjects, is clearly unreasonable and unacceptable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sunita Sharma & others V. State of Rajasthan & others, 2002(2) Services Law Reporter 348.

To substantiate their claim, reliance is placed on the following observations of the Apex Court in Sunita Sharma's case (supra):- " It appears to us that the High Court passed its order only to adjust equities in the case. If that is so, we fail to understand as to why the appellants before us should not be accommodated by the government when they possess the due qualifications, as noticed by the learned single judge. Their cases ought to have been considered as per the directions issued by the learned single judge. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants before us and appropriate action be taken thereof within a period of two months on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the higher secondary examination subject to the condition that their appointments shall be treated as fresh appointments and they will not have any claim as to the seniority or other benefits. It is made clear that we have CWP NO.10244 OF 2006 3

passed this order in the peculiar circumstances arising in these appeals and the same shall not be treated as a precedent." We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners noticed in the foregoing paragraph. It is, however, not possible for us to accept the same. The post of Ophthalmic Officer was advertised on 7.6.2006 by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, wherein applications were invited for appointment to the post of Ophthalmic Officer from amongst candidates who fulfilled the following qualifications:-

" 10 + 2 in Science stream with Biology.

Two Years Diploma in Ophthalmic Assistant from any recognized Institute."

It is apparent from the advertisement issued by the respondents that every candidate desirous of being considered for appointment against the post of Ophthalmic Officer, in furtherance of the aforesaid advertisement, besides possessing the qualification of two years diploma in 'Ophthalmic Assistant', must also possess the qualification of 10 + 2 in the science stream with Biology as one of the subjects. From the factual position noticed in the foregoing paragraphs and from the pleadings of the case, it is clear that none of the petitioners possess the qualification of 10 + 2 in the science stream with Biology as one of the subjects. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioners are ineligible for appointment to the post under reference, in terms of the advertisement.

In so far as the qualifications prescribed for undergoing the two years diploma course in 'Ophthalmic Assistant' is concerned, we are of the view that the same are irrelevant in so far as the present controversy is CWP NO.10244 OF 2006 4

concerned. Qualification prescribed for admission to the diploma course in 'Ophthalmic Assistant' is irrelevant for the purposes of eligibility for appointment to the post of Ophthalmic Officer. In so far as the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sunita Sharma's case (supra) is concerned, the High Court had arrived at the conclusion, that the qualifications prescribed by the authorities were possessed by the petitioners before it, and thus such orders were passed by the Court. In so far as the present controversy is concerned, we are of the view that the petitioners do not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Ophthalmic Officer, and as such, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not apply to the case in hand.

No further submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( Kiran Anand Lall )

July 13, 2006. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.