JYOTI VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by means of this petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Child Psychologist in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. She has further prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as Child Psychologist being the only eligible candidate for the said post.

(2.) AT the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that earlier also the petitioner had filed two petitions being CWP No. 3890 of 2009 and CWP No. 3539 of 2009, pertaining to the appointment to the posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. Respondent No. 5 in the present petition was respondent No. 4 in the earlier petitions and the allegation was that the private respondent did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. This Court found that both the petitioner and private respondent possessed the requisite academic qualifications. The only dispute was with experience. The petitioner 's experience was in the blood bank where she has been working as Counsellor. On the other hand, the private respondent was working as Clinical Psychologist in the District Disability Rehabilitation Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. The stand of the Rogi Kalyan Samiti was that none of the candidates possessed the requisite experience and hence a decision was taken to relax the qualifications in the matter of experience. This Court found that the selection committee was not entitled to relax the essential qualification of experience and held this action illegal.

(3.) THIS judgment was passed on 13th May, 2010 and thereafter the Rogi Kalyan Samiti invited fresh applications for the posts of Child Psychologist and Clinical Psychologist vide advertisement issued on 14.6.2010. It was directed that walk -in -interviews would be held on 24.6.2010. The requisite qualifications and experience as depicted in the advertisement is as follows: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_169_LAWS(HPH)1_2012.htm</FRM>