VINOD KUMAR Vs. CIVIL SURGEON, KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the selection of respondent No.3 for the post of Driver of Advance Life Supporting (ALS) Ambulance on the ground that respondent No.3 had appeared for the driving test for the post of Driver for 102 Referral Transport Ambulance in which he was held to be not eligible having failed in driving test.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the selection of respondent No.3 is bad for the following reasons:

(2.) The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that as per the guidelines issued by Mission Director, NRHM, a Committee was constituted consisting of Works Manager, Haryana Roadways and Deputy Civil Surgeons. As per the advertisement published for the post of Drivers for ALS Ambulance and of 102 Referral Transport Ambulance at District Headquarter, Kurukshetra, driving test was held on 23 rd and 24th November 2011 for both the posts of Driver in the office of G.M. Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra. After driving test, date for interview was fixed for November 25, 2011, for the candidates who passed the driving test and the interview was held at the office of Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra. So far as petitioner is concerned, he had applied for the post of Driver for ALS Ambulance whereas respondent No.3 had applied for boththe posts of Driver i.e. for ALS Ambulance and 102 Referral Transport Ambulance. It is the specific stand of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 that respondent No.3 had appeared for the test for the post of 102 Referral Transport Ambulance on November 23, 2011. Again respondent No.3 appeared for the driving test for the post of ALS Ambulance in the office of G.M., Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, in the presence of Selection Committee and he cleared the preliminary test of driving. The road driving test of respondent No.3 was held on the same day and he passed the same and obtained 6 marks out of 15 marks in the second driving test i.e. road driving test. Respondent No.3 appeared before the Selection Committee in the Office of Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra and he was able to get 7/10 marks as such he was appointed for the post of driver for ALS Ambulance. The selection of respondent No.3 is claimed to be purely on merit.

(3.) A perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended indicates that respondent No.3 had appeared in two tests for the post of Driver one for ALS Ambulance at District Headquarter and second for 102 Referral Transport Ambulance. He was somehow not found eligible for having failed in driving test of 102 Referral Transport Ambulance but in the second test held for the post of Driver for ALS Ambulance, he was able to get 7 marks in the interview and 6 marks in the driving test out of 10 and 15 marks respectively. He got 7.3 marks in the basic qualification. The petitioner was able to get 3 marks in the driving test and 3 marks in the interview. He was given 5 marks for being a local applicant and 7.9 marksout of 15 marks for the basic qualification. Merely because respondent No.3 for any reason did not pass the driving test for 102 Referral Transport Ambulance will not make him ineligible for the second test for the post of Driver of ALS Ambulance.