JYOTI VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the selection and appointment on contract basis to the posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist. Writ Petition No. 3890 of 2009 pertains to the appointment to the post of Child Psychologist and the other one to the post of Clinical Psychologist. The Rogi Kalyan Samiti of Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla invited applications for appointment to the respective posts. Employment Notice is Annexure P-3 in CWP No. 3890 of 2009. It is stated that "the candidates must have knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Himachal Pradesh". Sr. No. 2 post is Child Psychologist. It is submitted that the candidate should have essential qualification of (1) PG Degree in Psychology, (2) Ph. D. in Psychology from a recognized foreign University as such recognized by the University Grant Commission and (3) Three years teaching/research/Work experience in the field after obtaining Ph. D. Degree.

(2.) It is contended by the Petitioner that private Respondent in the former writ petition did riot have the three years teaching/research/ work experience in the field after obtaining Ph. D. Degree. There is a serious dispute as to the date of the award of Ph. D. Degree. The Certificate would show that Ph. D. Degree has been awarded only on 9.10.2006. But it is seen from the records that the Vice-Chancellor had approved the award of Ph. D. Degree to the private Respondent on 13.9.2006. It is seen from the Regulations that the date of approval by the Vice-Chancellor is the relevant date for the purpose of the award of Ph. D. and the mistake in the date shown in the Certificate already issued is 9.10.2006, is getting corrected. We do not think that we should go into the dispute in that regard in view of the order we propose to pass in this case. Both the Petitioner and the private Respondent do possess the academic qualification. The dispute is with regard to the experience. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is seen that experience what she gained as Counsellor is in the blood bank. As far as private Respondent is concerned, her experience is as Clinical Psychologist in the Disabled Rehabilitation Centre in the IGMC since 1st December, 2004. The question is whether that experience of either the Petitioner or the Respondent is in the field after obtaining Ph. D. Degree. On going through the records of selection, we do not find that the Selection Committee has made a fine distinction as to whether any candidate possessed the requisite qualification, in the matter of experience. We do not also find as to whether the Selection Committee had applied its mind as to whether any candidate possessed the experience in the field, namely, the field of Child Psychology.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Kogi Kalyan Samiti submits that none of the candidates possessed the requisite experience and hence they had decided to relax the qualification in the matter of experience and thus the Selection Committee had to make a comparative assessment with regard to the experience possessed by the candidate. We find from the records that the Petitioner had been granted the full marks for experience but not the private Respondent.