SAROJ KAROTHIYA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Laboratory Technician. * Decision Reproduced in toto. The contention of the petitioner is that she is a member of the Scheduled Caste and has secured 56% in the 10+2 examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The petitioner has further stated that she has completed her graduation with Biology and has also obtained diploma in the Medical Laboratory Technology from the Government Women Polytechnic College. Gwalior with 79% marks. The petitioner has further stated that an advertisement was issued by the respondent inviting the applications for the post of Laboratory Technician as contained in Annexure P/5 and the petitioner, as she was fulfilling the requisite criteria prescribed for the post, has submitted an application in the prescribed format. The petitioner has further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the qualification required for the post of Laboratory Technician was Higher Secondary School examination/10+2 examination with Chemistry, Physics and Biology as subjects and one year training or diploma in Medical Pathology. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5, though was having 10+2 certificate to his credit, was not fulfilling the requisite qualification of diploma in pathology and in spite of the fact that he was not fulfilling the requisite qualification for the post of Laboratory Technician, the respondents have appointed him by passing an order dated 30th June, 2006. The petitioner has further stated that a merit list was prepared and she was placed at s1. No. 6 in the merit list and the person at s1. No. 4 was also not offered appointment for want of requisite qualilfication and, therefore, the respondent No. 5, Deepak Kumar was offered the appointment though he was not having the requisite qualification. The contention of the petitioner is that she being the meritorious candidate and possessing all the requisite qualifications is entited for the appointment with all the consequential benefits.

(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4 and the contention of the respondents is that the respondent No. 5 was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner as he has secured 57.55% marks in the 10+2 examination. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 5 has passed 10+2 examination with Medical Laboratory Technology as one of the subjects which includes laboratory medicine, clinical bio-chemistry and micro-biology which is of 02 years course and, therefore, the same was considered as a diploma in the medical pathology because the post in question was of the Laboratory Techinician and, therefore, the selection committee has held that the respondent No. 5 was more meritorious and holds the requisite qualification as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The respondent have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, Notices were issued by this Court on 24th November, 2006 to the respondent No. 5 and, thereafter again this Court has directed the petitioner to pay fresh process fee for issuance of notice to the respondent No. 5. Notices were issued afresh and the service report reflects that the notice has been served on the respondent No. 5, however, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.