BHUWAN BHASKAR Vs. RAJENDRA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. PRAYER

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing part of list of selected candidates issued vide letter no. RIMS/ Admn. / No. 77, dtd. 27/1/2020 (Annesxure-11) so far it relates to respondent no. 3, who has been selected for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician, as he secured lesser marks than the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing entire select list issued vide letter no. RIMS/ Admn. / No. 77, dtd. 27/1/2020, relating to appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician, as the respondents have prepared the merit list by adding marks obtained in skill test with the marks obtained in the written test and marks given for experience, contrary to the guidelines mentioned in letter no. F. No. 39020/09/ 2015 ' Estt. B, issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India and after quashing the list of selected candidates, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 be directed to revise the same and prepare fresh merit list on the basis of marks obtained in written test as well as marks awarded on the basis of experience. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Technician as he has secured more marks than the respondent no. 3. FACTUAL MATRIX

(3.) According to the petitioner, an advertisement no. 955(A), dtd. 8/3/2019 was published for appointment on various Grade-III posts including the post of Laboratory Technician in RIMS followed by Corrigendum no. 1097, dtd. 16/3/2019. The maximum age prescribed for unreserved category was fixed as 35 years and the essential qualification was I.Sc./10+2 (Science) with Degree/ Diploma in Laboratory Technician and the candidate must be registered with State Paramedical Council. Petitioner, a local resident of State of Jharkhand, was fulfilling all the requisite criteria and as such submitted duly filled up application form in prescribed format within the prescribed time. On 16/9/2019, a list of eligible candidates for the post of Laboratory Technician was published and the candidates were instructed to appear in the written exam scheduled to be held on 21/9/2019. After the examination, the result was published on 30/12/2019. Thereafter, pursuant to the office order dtd. 30/12/2019 (Annexure-8), objections were invited from the aggrieved candidates relating to marks obtained by them till 4/1/2020 and the dates were also announced for documents verification and skill test. Subsequently, the notice dtd. 6/1/2020 was issued showing petitioner at sl. No. 14 in general category with 47.5 marks. After verification of documents, petitioner was found fit for appointment and the list of candidates were issued on 8/1/2020 again showing petitioner at serial no. 14. Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the skill test on 9/1/2020. However, instead of skill test, interview was conducted by the respondents. Thereafter, provisional merit list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician was published for which notice was issued vide RIMS/ Admn/ No. 77, dtd. 27/1/2020. From the provisional merit list dtd. 27/1/2020, it is apparent that the candidates at Sl. No. 7, 10 to 17 under the General Category have secured less marks than the petitioner but they have been selected provisionally for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician. The name of respondent no. 3 appears at serial no. 17 under General category, although said respondent no. 3 had secured 33.5 and was at serial no. 40, which is apparent from the notice dtd. 8/1/2020 whereas petitioner had secured 47.5 marks and was placed at serial no. 14 but was not selected for appointment. Respondents published fresh list of selected candidates as contained in Memo NO. 4046/ RIMS, dtd. 20/10/2020. Grievance of the petitioner is that out of the selected candidates, the candidates namely Rajiv Kumar, Deepak Kumar Pathak, Santosh Kumar Singh, Binita Kumari, Ratnesh Kumar, Amit Kumar Deepak, Sonal Singh and Afsana Ruhi had got marks lesser than the petitioner and despite that their names find place in the final list dtd. 20/10/2020. In the said list, name of respondent no. 3 Shashi Ranjan is not there. The final list selecting candidates having secured marks lesser than the petitioner is bad, illegal and as such, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER