Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Bhuwan Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2020
Decided on : 09-01-2024
MERIT LIST - LABORATORY TECHNICIAN APPOINTMENT - RIMS ACT, 2002; GUIDELINES BY MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL - The court addressed the legality of the merit list for the appointment of Laboratory Technicians, emphasizing that the selection process must adhere to established guidelines. It highlighted that the skill test was not to be considered for merit ranking, as it was only qualifying in nature. The court found that the inclusion of skill test marks in the final merit list was contrary to the guidelines, leading to favoritism and illegalities in the selection process. The court directed the preparation of a fresh merit list based solely on written test scores and experience.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the selection list for Laboratory Technician positions, arguing that he scored higher than selected candidates, including respondent no. 3, who had lower marks. The petitioner contended that the merit list was improperly prepared by combining skill test marks with written test scores, contrary to government guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no provision for a skill test in the advertisement or rules, and that the selection process was marred by favoritism and illegalities. The court noted discrepancies in the marks awarded and concluded that the merit list was invalid.
Issues: Whether the inclusion of skill test marks in the merit list was permissible under the applicable guidelines, and whether the selection process was conducted fairly and transparently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the merit list must be based solely on the written test and experience, as the skill test was only qualifying. The court emphasized that the selection process must be transparent and adhere to established rules, rejecting any arbitrary changes made post-selection.
Final Decision: The court quashed the existing merit list and directed the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list based on the written test scores and experience, to be completed within twelve weeks.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PATHAK, J.
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, dated 27.01.2020 (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, dated 27.01.2020, 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 & 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), dated 08.03.2019 was published for appointment on various Grade-III posts including the post of Laboratory Technician in RIMS followed by Corrigendum no. 1097, dated 16.03.2019. 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 16.09.2019, 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 21.09.2019. After the examination, the result was published on 30.12.2019. Thereafter, pursuant to the office order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-8), objections were invited from the aggrieved candidates relating to marks obtained by them till 04.01.2020 and the dates were also announced for documents verification and skill test. Subsequently, the notice dated 06.01.2020 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 08.01.2020 again showing petitioner at serial no. 14. Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the skill test on 09.01.2020. 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, Dated 27.01.2020. From the provisional merit list dated 27.01.2020, 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 dated 08.01.2020 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, dated 20.10.2020. Grievance of the petitioner is that out of the selected candidates, the candidate
The court established that merit lists for public appointments must strictly adhere to the prescribed guidelines, and any deviation that introduces favoritism or lacks transparency is subject to judi....
The court affirmed that petitioners, having previously accepted the selection process, were barred from later contesting the methodology due to principles of waiver and acquiescence, despite alleging....
Selection processes must be fair and transparent, with candidates having no vested rights if they participated without protest, respecting merit-based adjustments among categories.
The main legal point established is that the selection process must adhere to the criteria specified in the notification, and any deviation without issuing a corrigendum is impermissible.
Interview-only selection valid for senior academic posts if compliant with per-vacancy screening rules; uniform expert evaluation indicates consensus, not bias.
The Tribunals and Courts have limited jurisdiction under judicial review to interfere with the merit and selection lists prepared by expert bodies unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, bias, o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
