C H JAYAPRAKASH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order of the first respondent dated 12. 12. 1996, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ peti tion for quashing the same as well as for further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner who is in waiting list No. 1 in the post of Laboratory Technician, Grade III in the 3rd respondent department.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder: THE petitioner completed his B. Sc. Degree in Special chemistry during June, 1993. He joined the Voluntary Health Services, College of Medical Technology , Adyar, chennai-113, and underwent the full time post-graduate diploma course in medical Laboratory Technology for a period of one year and successfully completed the Post Graduate Diploma during July, 1994. Immediately the petitioner was ap-, pointed as a Lab. Assistant in the Voluntary Health services, Adyar, Chennai-113 and he continues to serve, in the said institution till date. It is contended that the first respondent issued a paper publication in' ; THE hindu' ; dated 5. 5. 1996 calling for applications for several posts of which the present writ petitioner relates to the post of Laboratory Technician in the Department of Microbiology, the third respondent herein. THE petitioner applied to the first re- spondent in the prescribed format giving all particulars as to his age, educational qualification,, work experience and also enclosed the attested copies of his degree and P. G. Diploma Certificates, community certificate and experience certificate. THE first respondent being satisfied with the petitioner' s credentials, by official communication dated 5. 8. 96 called upon him to appear for an interview for the post of laboratory Technician Grade III on 12. 9. 1996 in the chambers of the 2nd respondent. THE petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 12. 9. 1996 along with all originals. THE second respondent conducted a written test as well as oral interview and the petitioner performed excellent in both and members of the committee also appreciated the petitioner. Along with the petitioner 10 others also attended the interview after written test and the 4th respondent was also one among the candidates who appeared for the interview for selection. THE petitioner came to know that by proceedings dated 12. 12. 1996, the first respondent has appointed the fourth respondent as Laboratory technician Grade III in the 3rd respondent institute. THE said order is challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. It is also contended that as per the qualification stipulated in the paper publication, the candidate should be a B. Sc, graduate plus should possess a Diploma in Medical Laboratory technology from Voluntary Health Service, Adyar or any recognised Institutions. THE fourth respondent on the date of application had not completed her Diploma course and in her. application itself she has mentioned that her results are awaited. THErefore, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is ineligible to apply for the said post, since she did not have the required educational Qualification as on the date of application. Hence, the order of appointment issued in favour of the fourth respondent is unsustainable. On the other hand, the petitioner has possessed a B. Sc, Degree in Special Chemistry together with Post Graduate Diploma from Voluntary Health Service at Adyar as prescribed in the paper publication and has also been working as Laboratory Technician in voluntary Health Services, Adyar itself. However, the second respondent failed to consider these factors and have selected the 4th respondent on erroneous consideration. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent has not acquired her Diploma as on the date when she applied for the said post and hence she could not have any experience as a qualified Laboratory Technician, since she had acquired her diploma only after June, 1996. Admittedly the 4th respondent did not possess the diploma on the date when she applied for the post, nor she obtained before the cut off date prescribed in the paper publication on 27. 5. 1996. THErefore, the 4th respondent is ineligible even to apply for the post much less to be selected. Hence, according to the petitioner, the impugned order selecting the fourth respondent to the post of Laboratory Technician ill the third respondent department is illegal and ab initio void.

(3.) THE guidelines prescribed in' ; B' ; above by the Supreme Court are applicable to our case. As per the said guidelines b, the candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. As already stated, in this case, in the absence of any specific date with regard to the minimum qualifications, the applications must possess the required minimum qualifications on the last date of applications that is, on 27. S. 1996. Admittedly there is no dispute that on 27. 5. 1996 fourth respondent has not secured Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology even though she had written examinations and secured the Diploma at the time of selection. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the fourth respondent on the material date that is on 27. 5. 1996 was lacking in minimum qualification. Even though she was having other qualifications and experience in Laboratory Technician in the department of Micro-Biology. In view of the guidelines prescribed by the Apex court in the above referred case, I am of the view that though the fourth respondent qualified herself on the date of selection, she was not having requisite qualifications on the last date of applications mat is in 27. 5. 1996. If that is so, the impugned order selecting the fourth respondent to the post of laboratory Technician in the third respondent Department is illegal and ab initio void. Under these circumstances, since the fourth respondent has not possessed the requisite qualifications on the date of her application as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of rajasthan, (1993)3 S. C. C. (Supp.) 168, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 12. 12. 1996 is hereby quashed. Even according to the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner has been placed as No. l in the waiting list, hence the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. THEre will be no order as to costs. .