RAM BRIKSHA CHAUDHARI Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, petitioner Shri Ram Briksha Chaudhari, was appointed by the Principal, Maharani Laxim Bai Medical College, Jhansi as is evident from perusal of his appointment letter dated 22nd Feb., 1995 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). There is no averment that the post was ever advertised. From the record of the petition it is evident that the petitioner was appointed without adopting prescribed procedure for making appointment.

(2.) Moreover, there is no averment nor any material on record to show that petitioner, who did not possess requisite training of Lab Technician, was appointed under constraints of non-availability of a qualified candidate. It is queer to note that no effort was made to advertise the post and select best available candidate at that time. Petitioner alleges that he was not permitted to complete requisite training in pursuance to the condition contained in the aforesaid appointment letter (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) and in its support he has filed two documents (Annexures 4 and 5 to the petition) wherefrom it appears that petitioner applied to the Director General for according permission to him for obtaining requisite Lab Technician Training. The Principal appears to have recommended the same vide letter dated 15th June, 1996 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). What action was taken by the petitioner when requisite permission was not accorded by the Director General, Medical Education and Training is a matter as guess. Work in absence of requisite pleadings cannot be decided as necessary requisite pleadings are wanted in this case. Petitioner has not filed relevant material indicating the minimum qualification required for the post of Lab Technician nor he has filed copy of the requisite rules permitting in-service training and or otherwise permitting a candidate to be appointed as Lab Technician without possessing requisite training/qualification.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that petitioner did not complete training of Lab Technician even though he had full opportunity to do so uptil 31st Jan., 1997. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit this court comes to the conclusion that petitioner was not serious to complete Lab Technician Training.