Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.11150 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16873 of 2014)

SUKHWINDER KUMAR & ORS. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ….Respondent(s)

With  

CIVIL APPEAL No.11151 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17172 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL No.11152 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17163 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL No.11153 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17147 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL No.11154 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5862 of 2015)  

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  1

These Appeals are filed against the judgment of the High

Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  disposing  of  a

batch  of  writ  petitions  by  a  common  judgment  dated

14.11.2013.  As the facts and issues involved in these appeals

are similar, we propose to deal with all the appeals together.

For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the facts in the

Appeal filed against CWP No.15678 of 2011.     

2. The  Appellants  were  appointed  as  Lab  Technicians  on

contract basis in the National Rural Health Mission between

the years 2001 and 2010. Their selection was pursuant to a

notice that  was issued by the State Programme Manager,

National  Rural  Health  Mission,  Punjab.   Their  consolidated

remuneration  was  fixed  at  Rs.8,000/-  per  month.   An

advertisement was issued by the Health and Family Welfare

Department for recruitment to various posts on 26.07.2011.

The said advertisement included 390 posts for the post of

Medical Laboratory Technician (Grade-II).  The qualifications

prescribed for  recruitment  to  the  said  post  were  that  the

applicant  should  have  cleared  the  Senior  Secondary

Examination with science and must possess a diploma as a 2

Medical  Laboratory  Technician.   The  above  qualifications

were on the basis of the Punjab Health and Family Welfare

Technical  (Group-‘C’)  Service  Rules,  2007  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  ‘the 2007  Rules’)  which  were  notified  on

11.06.2007.  As per Appendix B to the said Rules,  75 per

cent of the posts of Medical Laboratory Technician (Grade-II)

shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the qualifications

for appointment mentioned therein are as under: I. “Should  have  passed  the  Senior  Secondary

Part-II  examination  with  science  or  its equivalent  from  a  recognised  University  or Institution; and  

II. Should  possess  a  diploma  in  Medical Laboratory  Technology  from  a  recognised University or Institution”.  

3. The  Appellants  had  passed  matriculation  and  thereafter

completed  the  diploma  as  Medical  Laboratory  Technician.

The Appellants challenged the qualification of passing Senior

Secondary  examination  for  appointment  to  the  post  of

Medical  Laboratory  Technician  as  prescribed  by  the  2007

Rules by  filing  a  Writ  Petition  in  the  High  Court.   The

Appellants  also  sought  a  direction  that  they  should  be

considered  for  appointment  to  the  posts  of  Medical

Laboratory Technician which were advertised on 26.07.2011.

It  was  averred  in  the  Writ  Petition  that  the  Appellants

3

completed  their  diploma as  Medical  Laboratory  Technician

prior to the enactment of the 2007 Rules.   It was further

averred  that  their  admission  to  the  course  of  Medical

Laboratory  Technician  was  on  the  basis  of  their  existing

educational  qualification  i.e.  matriculation.   By  an  interim

order  dated  19.12.2011,  the  High  Court  directed  the

Respondents to consider the Appellants for appointment to

the  posts  of  Medical  Laboratory  Technician  (Grade-II)

notwithstanding the fact that they did not have the requisite

qualification of passing the Senior Secondary examination.

The  reason  given  for  the  said  order  was  that  the  Punjab

State Board of  Technical  Education and Industrial  Training,

Chandigarh had prescribed matriculation as the qualification

for admission to the diploma courses like Medical Laboratory

Technicians, even in the year 2011.  Prima facie, the High

Court found that prescribing a higher qualification of passing

Senior  Secondary  School  for  appointment  as  Medical

Laboratory  Technicians  was  not  justified.    Thereafter,  by

another order dated 10.10.2013, the High Court directed the

State  Government  to  adopt  a  uniform  pattern  for

qualification of admission to the diploma courses as well as

to  the  recruitment  to  public  posts.   Taking  note  of  the

4

anomalous situation that was created by the Government,

the High Court directed that no recruitment will take place

till  the uniformity as directed was brought about.   By the

impugned order dated 14.11.2013, the High Court disposed

of the Writ Petitions on the basis of a statement made on

behalf of the Respondents that remedial measures would be

taken for bringing uniformity in the matter of appointments

of  Medical  Laboratory  Technicians  with  respect  to  their

educational qualifications. The High Court observed that the

Principal  Secretary,  Medical  Education,  Punjab  should

consider giving the appellants, who possess matriculation as

the  minimum  qualification,  a  right  to  compete  for

appointment to the posts of Medical Laboratory Technician.

The High Court observed that the mechanism to be adopted

by the Respondents for  recruitment  of  Medical  Laboratory

Technician shall be given effect to in the recruitments to be

made  ‘henceforth’.   Since  the  Appellants  have  gained

considerable experience in public institutions the High Court

directed  that  their  continuance  in  the  Government  aided

societies or societies run by the State Governments ought to

be considered sympathetically.  Aggrieved by the judgment

5

dated  14.11.2013  of  the  High  Court,  the  Appellants  have

filed the above appeals.  

4. This court directed status quo as regards the continuance of

the  Petitioners/Appellants  to  be  maintained  by  an  order

dated  12.09.2014.   During  the  course  of  arguments,  Ms.

Uttara  Babbar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

Respondent-State, submitted that appointment to the posts

of  Medical  Laboratory  Technicians  pursuant  to  the

advertisement issued in the year 2011 have been finalised

and  all  the  advertised  posts  have  been  filled  up.  It  was

further submitted that another advertisement was issued in

2016. We directed the Respondent - State to file an affidavit

stating all facts pertaining to the advertisement of 2011 and

the subsequent advertisement issued on 2016.  

5. In compliance of our direction, an affidavit was filed by the

Director of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab on behalf of

Respondent No.1 and 2.  It is stated in the affidavit that 359

out of 390 posts which were advertised in 2011 have been

filled up and only 31 posts of various reserved categories

were  left  vacant  due  to  non-availability  of  eligible

candidates.   It was further stated that in compliance of the

6

directions  issued  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned

judgment  dated  14.11.2013,  the  2007  Rules  have  been

repealed and   ‘Punjab Health and Family Welfare Technical

(Group-C) Rules 2016’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2016

Rules’) have been brought into force w.e.f. 02.11.2016.  The

anomaly  that  existed  in  the  matter  of  educational

qualifications  for  appointment  to  the  posts  of  Medical

Laboratory  Technician  (Grade-II)  was  corrected  by  making

matriculates  with  a  diploma  in  Medical  Laboratory

Technology eligible for appointment.   An advertisement was

issued on 17.12.2016 for recruitment to 140 posts of Medical

Laboratory Technician.   It is also averred in the affidavit that

the written examination for selection to the said 140 posts

has  already  been  conducted  on  26.03.2017  and

counselling/verification  of  the  documents  has  also  been

completed on 11.08.2017.  While referring to the law laid

down  by  this  Court,  Respondents  have  stated  that  the

Appellants are not entitled for any relaxation in appointment.

6. Pursuant  to  the  permission  granted,  the  Appellants  filed

affidavits on 25.08.2017 and 28.08.2017 in response to the

affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  State.   The  Appellants

submitted  that  70  posts  out  of  390  posts  of  Medical 7

Laboratory Technician which were advertised on 26.07.2011

are  vacant  due to  the  non-joining  of  selected  candidates.

The  Appellants  further  submitted  that  they  secured  more

marks  than the  last  selected  candidates  in  the  selections

conducted  pursuant  to  the  advertisement  of  2011.

Ultimately,  they  were  not  selected  as  they  were  held

ineligible  by  the  Respondents.    According  to  them,  the

Government repealed the Service Rules of 2007 and brought

into  force  new Rules  in  2016 whereby  the  Appellants  are

eligible for  appointment to the post of Medical  Laboratory

Technician.  The Appellants urged for their consideration for

selection and appointment to the post of Medical Laboratory

Technician in the posts that were advertised in 2011.     

7. We are not concerned with the regularisation of the services

of the Appellants in this case.  The only issue is regarding

their  consideration for  appointment  as  Medical  Laboratory

Technicians to the posts advertised in the year 2011.  The

direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment

has been implemented in 2016 by promulgation of the 2016

Rules whereby  matriculates  with  a  diploma  in  Medical

Laboratory Technology were made eligible for recruitment to

the posts of Medical Laboratory Technician (Grade-II).    8

8. It is true that the Appellants were directed to be considered

for appointment to the post of Medical Laboratory Technician

(Grade-II)  though  they  did  not  pass  Senior  Secondary

Examination.    The  Appellants  did  not  succeed  in  their

challenge to the 2007 Rules. The High Court only directed

consideration of the Appellants for appointment ‘henceforth’,

after  correction  of  the  anomaly  in  the  educational

qualifications.   

9. Admittedly, the Appellants were not eligible for consideration

for appointment to the post of Medical Laboratory Technician

according to the  2007 Rules.   The advertisement that was

issued in 2011 was on the basis of the 2007 Rules.   By an

interim order, the High Court directed the Appellants to be

considered in spite of  their  ineligibility  in  accordance with

the 2007 Rules.   It is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of

the  Appellants  in  the  Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of  SLP  (C)

No.5862  of  2015  that  the  Appellants  have  secured  more

marks than the last selected candidate.  It is clear from the

affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  State  that  the  selections

pursuant  to  the  advertisement  issued  in  2011  have  been

finalised and that the selections for the advertisement issued 9

in  2016  are  at  the  final  stage.   As  there  was  no  interim

protection  granted  to  the  Appellants  regarding  the

finalisation of the selection pursuant to the advertisement of

2011,  we  do  not  find  any  illegality  in  the  action  of  the

Respondents  in  completing  the  process  of  selections.

Though  we  find  that  the  Appellants  suffered  due  to  the

anomaly in the 2007 Rules which was rectified by the 2016

Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants

are  not  entitled  to  be  considered  for  appointment  to  the

posts advertised in 2011.   We do not intend to interfere with

the  finalisation  of  the  selections  pursuant  to  which  the

selected candidates would have been appointed.  However,

we  direct  the  Respondents  to  consider  the  Appellants,

according to their merit to the vacancies which are not filled

up pursuant to the advertisement of 2011 due to non-joining

of selected candidates.   

10.In  any  event,  the  Appellants  shall  be  entitled  for

consideration  for  the  140  posts  of  Medical  Laboratory

Technician  advertised  in  2016.   The  Respondents  are

directed  to  consider  the  Appellants,  by  relaxing  the

maximum  age  (if  required),  in  the  available  unfilled

10

vacancies of the 2011 advertisement and 140 posts which

were advertised in 2016.  

11.With the above direction, the Appeals are disposed of.  

                                                                         …................................J                                                        [S.A. BOBDE]

                        …................................J                                                                       [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, September 04, 2017

11