Amarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.23583 of 2013.

Date of Decision: 23.02.2018.

Amarjit Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM :

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan Present :

Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of selection list (Annexure P-7) vide which the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Block Extension Educator has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner by adding extra marks on account of experience. Respondent No. 2 issued public notice dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) for recruitment of various posts in Health Department of Punjab. In pursuance to the public notice, the petitioner applied for the post of Block Extension Educator. As per the advertisement, two marks per year were to be given for the experience in Government/NRHM/reputed Hospital to the candidates and maximum 10 marks were to be given towards the experience. The counselling for the candidates was held on 05.03.2012 and 27.03.2012 and provisional merit list was prepared. In the said list, the name of the

petitioner figured at Serial No. 69. Thereafter, objections were invited from the candidates and the petitioner submitted his objections on 18.09.2013 specifically mentioning therein that his experience in the Government service had not been considered. It is further contended that the petitioner had been working as Additional Programme Officer under the MNREGA in Village Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab since 20.12.2008 till date. Prior thereto, the petitioner had worked as Production Assistant and Announcer in All India Radio, Patiala from January, 2004 to 04.12.2008. Thus, he has more than five years' experience in his account as a government servant which was not counted by the respondents.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the experience gained by the petitioner is not from any government institution, therefore, the same has not been taken into consideration by the authorities.

Heard.

The petitioner has challenged the selection process on the ground that he has not been awarded marks against his experience as Casual Announcer on Assignment Basis and helping in production work at All India Radio and as Additional Programme Officer under MG-NREGA in the office of Programme Officer-cum-BDPO, Block Bhunerheri, District Patiala. The State Department of Health and Family Welfare functions at Government level, Directorate level, District level, Block level and Primary level. At the Block level, Senior

Medical Officer is In-charge of the Primary Health Centre. He is assisted by one to two Medical Officers. Dental Surgeon is also part of the Health Management in some of the block levels. Multipurpose Health Supervisor and lock Extension Education assist them to supervise the delivery of health services at the peripheral level. The very nature of duty being delivery of health services at the peripheral level would in itself necessitate that preference should be given to a person having experience in health management. This Court is of the opinion that the experience clause has a reasonable nexus to the object. Thus, such a decision cannot be interfered with. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 23.02.2018.

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) SN JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No