Relevant Date For Considering Candidature Under Batch-Wise Selection Is Year & Month Of Passing: Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs Appointment Of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking appointment.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held, “True it is that date relevant for reckoning the batch of a candidate is the date recorded on the original “Detail Marks Certificate” of the final professional examination of the candidate issued by the concerned University/Institution, but it is nowhere mentioned in the R& P Rules that date of issuance of certificate given in the certificate would be relevant, rather, while considering candidature under batch-wise selection, relevant date would be the year and month of passing.”

Advocate Uday Singh Banyal represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner had passed her Diploma in Ayurvedic Pharmacy in the academic session 2003-2005 in June, 2005. Her certificate with regard thereto was issued in the year 2006, and the respondents, while doing batch-wise selection for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer under the ward of ex-servicemen quota, denied her appointment against the batch of 2005. The denial was based on the ground that she did not belong to the batch of 2005; rather, on account of the issuance of a certificate on April 7, 2006, she was to be treated as belonging to the batch of 2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to the R& P Rules for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer, Class-III (Non- Gazetted), the Bench noted that the selection for appointment to the post in the case of appointment on batch-wise basis will be made by the concerned recruiting authority i.e. Director (Ayurveda), H.P, based on batch-wise merit/inter-se seniority of the candidates of a particular batch which has passed out from recognized University/ Institution duly recognized by the State/Central Government. “Most importantly, it has been provided in the aforesaid provision that the date recorded on the original "Detail Marks Certificate" of final professional examination of the candidate by concerned University/ Institution shall be deemed as the date for reckoning the batch of the candidate”, it added.

Considering the fact that the petitioner passed Diploma in Ayurvedic Pharmacy in June, 2005 but since certificate came to be issued on April 7, 2006, the Bench held that it couldnot be said that petitioner passed two years’ Diploma in Ayurvedic Pharmacy in the year 2006, especially when certificate(Annexure P-3) itself mentioned the period of diploma in Ayurvedic Pharmacy 2nd year 2004-2005.

“It is also not in dispute that Employment Exchange concerned, having taken note of the certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of registration, recommended her for selection to the post in question for the 2005 batch, but since Screening Committee, while making check list, wrongly mentioned the year and month of passing of course as 07.04.2006, candidature of the petitioner for the post in question came to be rejected”, it stated.

The Bench was fully convinced that the candidature of the petitioner ought to have been considered for the appointment against the post in question, treating her to be a candidate of the 2005 batch. Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench directed the Respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer, considering her to be an appointee of the 2005 batch. “...while doing so, appointment already given to private respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed, rather same shall remain protected. Petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period between deemed date of appointment and actual joining but same shall count for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Smt. Asha Rani v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Case No.: CWP No. 16189 of 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Uday Singh Banyal

Respondent: Additional Advocate Generals Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, B.C.Verma, Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan, Advocate Vivek Chandel

Click here to read/download Judgment