JAGMOHINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 6006 and 6706 of 1991 involving common questions of law and facts. For the purpose of judgment, Facts have been taken from C. W. P. No. 6006 of 1991, Joginder Singh and Ors. v. The Director Health Services Haryana and Ors.

(2.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to allow them to appear in the examination of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, which was being conducted by respondent No. 2 with effect from 6 5. 1991.

(3.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that the Director Health Services, Haryana, respondent No. 1 holds one year regular training course for the Laboratory Technicians The admission is controlled by the State Bacteriologist, Civil Hospital Karnal, respondent No. 2. The examination is conducted by respondent No. 2 in the months of September/october and the supplementary examination is held in the months of April/may every year. Successful candidates are awarded Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology which is recognised by the State of Haryana and other agencies for the purpose of employment. Similarly, under the Indian Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), the Director Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, selects apprentices, through various Industrial Institutions and after selection the candidates are attached with the Civil Hospitals at' the district level for a period of two years and they are further engaged in practical training in Hospital Technology for the third year under respondent No. 2. On the completion of the training, respondents 1 and 2 conduct the examination. The respondents, however, have not allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination of Laboratory Technology which the respondent No. 2 has been conducting for the last so many years. The sudden departure has caused irreparable loss to the petitioners. This action of the respondents is arbitrary and against the rules.