S. JEBA PAULIN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/S.Jeba Paulin, K.Sangeetha, V.Maheswari and M.K.Syed Ali have filed these writ petitions challenging the impugned qualification prescribed in the call letter issued in Na.Ka. No.22/Ma.Pa. The Va/2012 dated 20.03.2013 to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary in so far as the petitioners' case are concerned with the consequential direction to the 2nd Respondent/Medical Services Recruitment Board rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai, to issue appropriate advertisement for the post of 'Radiographer' either by earmarking reservation for the Diploma holders or by fixing ration between the Diploma in radio Diagnosis Technology holders and Certified Radiological Assistant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/S. Jeba Poulin and V.Maheswari after acquiring Higher Secondary Course, have also acquired Diploma in Radio Diagnosis Technology from Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, in May 2012 and Jan. 2012 respectively and they have also registered their educational qualification with the District Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli, and they were provided with Registration Nos.TND 2002 F 00004673 and TTD 2012 F 00017702 respectively and the petitioners/K.Sangeetha and M.K.Syed Ali after acquiring Higher Secondary Course, have also acquired Diploma in Radio Diagnosis Technology from the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, and the petitioner/Sangeetha has registered her educational qualification with the District Employment Exchange, Thoothukudi and she was provided with Registration No.TND 2004 F 00000102 and the petitioner/M.K.Syed Ali has registered his educational qualification with the District Employment Exchange, Madurai and he was provided with Registration No. MDD 2009 M 00000771.

(3.) In this State, there is only a Certified Radiological Assistant Course with the duration of one year and the said course is the only criteria for appointment to the post of Radiographer. Due to the development and advancement of science, the Director of Medical Education, the 3rd respondent herein, made a proposal for advancement of study in Radiology and thereby brought 2 Diploma courses, namely, Diploma in Radio Diagnosis Technology (DRDT) and Diploma in Radio Theraphy Technology (DRTT) and the said proposal was also accepted by the 1st respondent herein, resultantly, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.185, Health and Family Welfare (PME) Department, dated 23.06.2009. Subsequent to the said G.O, the petitioners acquired Diploma in Radio Diagnosis Technology (DRDT). After registering their names in the Employment Exchange, they are waiting for a call letter for the post of Radiographer. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent has issued a letter dated 20.03.2013 for appointment to the post of Radiographer fixing the qualification for the post as (a) A pass in HSC with Science subjects in the State of Tamil Nadu or equivalent; (b) A pass in certified Radiological Assistant Course conducted by the Department of Medical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu and in private institutions approved by Government of Tamil Nadu which are conducting CRA course. Since the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7152 of 2013/S.Jeba Paulin is placed in Serial No.512, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7188 of 2013/V.Maheswari is placed in Serial No. 513, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7153 of 2013/Sangeetha is placed in Serial No. 511 and the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.M.K.Syed Ali is placed in Serial No.246 of the State Seniority, they have also been issued with call letters dated 20.03.2013. On receipt of the same, they have participated in the certificate verification conducted by the second respondent on 12.04.2013. As per the conditions mentioned in the Call Letters, the petitioners produced all the certificates. But, the respondents orally rejected them for the reason that the petitioners do not possess the qualification, i.e., Certificate in Radiological Assistant. Knowing fully well that the Diploma in Radio Diagnosis Technology is advanced to CRA Course, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioners mechanically. Therefore, they are constrained to challenge the same.