Chandigarh, November 13
In what could change the way recruitment is carried out in the State of Punjab and give a sense of stability to job aspirants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned the government’s insistence on outsourcing the process of recruitment on contractual basis.
The query by Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa came in connection with the recruitment of medical laboratory technicians on contractual basis. But the issue has far reaching repercussions as Justice Dhindsa has observed that the present recruitment process in their case was opposed to regular selection process, which was in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In his detailed order, Justice Dhindsa asserted: “Respondent number one, the State of Punjab, shall justify the insistence on the part of the State Government in resorting to a process of outsourcing for filling up of the post of medical laboratory technician, Grade-I, on a contractual basis as opposed to taking resort to a regular selection process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
The issue was brought to the High Court’s notice by Kamal Kishore and other petitioners. In their petition filed through counsel Puneet Gupta in 2009, medical laboratory technicians, grade-II, had challenged the filling up of 26 permanent vacancies of grade-I laboratory technicians on contract basis.
Taking up the matter, the High Court on December 14, 2011, had directed the Secretary, Department and Research and Medical Education, to file his affidavit with directions that “before the process of selection of medical laboratory technician, grade I, is initiated, the State shall clarify its stand to the court”. The High Court had also expressed anguish on the manner in which the posts had been filled up by personnel provided by a detective agency.
Despite the lapse of nearly two years, the affidavit of the secretary concerned was not filed on at least six dates. Instead, the affidavit of the Joint Director, Research and Medical Education, was filed.
As the case came for resumed hearing, Justice Dhindsa asserted for “reasons best known to the State”, an affidavit only by Joint Director (dated August 24, 2012) has been filed.
“Since the matter is of substantial significance and relates to appointment to the post of medical laboratory technician, grade-I, it would be imperative for the director himself to respond to the observations contained in the order dated December 14, 2011”.
“Such affidavit would also disclose the total number of posts of medical laboratory technician, grade-I, and the handicap existing with the state government in not adhering to the draft rules that find a mention written statement filed on behalf of the State, where under a quota of 25 per cent has been earmarked for direct recruitment and 75 per cent by way of promotion from amongst in service medical laboratory technicians, grade-II”. The case will now come up on February 7, next year.
In what could change the way recruitment is carried out in the State of Punjab and give a sense of stability to job aspirants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned the government’s insistence on outsourcing the process of recruitment on contractual basis.
The query by Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa came in connection with the recruitment of medical laboratory technicians on contractual basis. But the issue has far reaching repercussions as Justice Dhindsa has observed that the present recruitment process in their case was opposed to regular selection process, which was in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In his detailed order, Justice Dhindsa asserted: “Respondent number one, the State of Punjab, shall justify the insistence on the part of the State Government in resorting to a process of outsourcing for filling up of the post of medical laboratory technician, Grade-I, on a contractual basis as opposed to taking resort to a regular selection process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
The issue was brought to the High Court’s notice by Kamal Kishore and other petitioners. In their petition filed through counsel Puneet Gupta in 2009, medical laboratory technicians, grade-II, had challenged the filling up of 26 permanent vacancies of grade-I laboratory technicians on contract basis.
Taking up the matter, the High Court on December 14, 2011, had directed the Secretary, Department and Research and Medical Education, to file his affidavit with directions that “before the process of selection of medical laboratory technician, grade I, is initiated, the State shall clarify its stand to the court”. The High Court had also expressed anguish on the manner in which the posts had been filled up by personnel provided by a detective agency.
Despite the lapse of nearly two years, the affidavit of the secretary concerned was not filed on at least six dates. Instead, the affidavit of the Joint Director, Research and Medical Education, was filed.
As the case came for resumed hearing, Justice Dhindsa asserted for “reasons best known to the State”, an affidavit only by Joint Director (dated August 24, 2012) has been filed.
“Since the matter is of substantial significance and relates to appointment to the post of medical laboratory technician, grade-I, it would be imperative for the director himself to respond to the observations contained in the order dated December 14, 2011”.
“Such affidavit would also disclose the total number of posts of medical laboratory technician, grade-I, and the handicap existing with the state government in not adhering to the draft rules that find a mention written statement filed on behalf of the State, where under a quota of 25 per cent has been earmarked for direct recruitment and 75 per cent by way of promotion from amongst in service medical laboratory technicians, grade-II”. The case will now come up on February 7, next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment