Ajay Tewari, J.
1. By this writ petition the petitioners have claimed that they can not be excluded from consideration for the post of Laboratory Technicians. The ground taken for exclusion is that the diploma of Medical Laboratory Technology from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi has not been recognized by the State of Haryana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two fold arguments. His first argument is that the petitioners are working on contract basis with the Govt. of Haryana and were selected by a public selection and once the Govt. of Haryana accepted that their qualification was recognized for the purpose of consideration and appointed them on contractual basis it could not now turn around and say that for the regular selection the petitioners are ineligible. In this connection he has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Lalit Kumar Vimal Vs. Secretary (Health) and others bearing No. WP(C) 1629 of 2010 decided on 29.11.2010, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"Before concluding we must express our anguish at the fact that the Government of NCT Delhi and its Department concerned i.e. the Board of Technical Education have not been discharging their Constitutional obligations evidenced by the fact that knowing fully well that Paramedical Education is not the subject matter of any legislation, they have neither legislated nor have framed any norms for recognizing institutions awarding diplomas in Paramedical Education. Even till today neither any legislation nor guidelines have been framed. The circular dated 3.6.2009 is based on the whims and fancies of somebody and without any norms being settled. We would be highlighting one fact that many similarly situated persons were permitted to join by the Medical Superintendents of some Government Hospitals and some like the writ petitioners before us were denied the benefit of they having been successful at the entrance exam. The proof of the fact that the diplomas obtained by them were after seriously pursuing a course from an institute worthy of awarding the diploma is the fact that appellant No. 3 of LPA No. 1653-58/2005 as also Sanjay Kumar have been working as Medical Laboratory Technician since the year 2002 and 2003 respectively and nothing unworthy in their work has been noted. This reassures us that as a result of our decision untrained persons would not be appointed. We note that three petitioners have been successfully working for the last 7 to 8 years."
3. The second limb of the argument is that the Department of Education, Govt. of Haryana had issued general instructions dated 18.03.1975 (Annexure P-12) wherein it had been laid down that all degrees and diplomas which are recognized by the Govt. of India will be deemed to be recognized by the Haryana Govt. and admittedly the diploma granted to the petitioners is recognized by the Govt. of India He has further relied upon the decision of this Court in CWP No. 17558 of 1999 titled as "Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 07.05.2012. In that case reference was made to a division bench judgment passed in the case of "Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on 01.11.2006, wherein it was held as follows:-
"According to the instructions issued by the respondent-State on 18.03.1975 (Annexure P.6) all those degrees and diplomas which have been awarded by the recognized Universities and by the Boards established by the State Government for High/Higher Secondary, were ipso facto recognized. It has further been provided that those degrees and diplomas which are recognized by Govt. of India are deemed to be recognized by the Government of Haryana. The aforementioned instructions have been reiterated again by another set of instructions issued on 2.11.1999 by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Education Department. Those instructions have been placed on record in a connected writ petition namely CWP No. 12187 of 2006 as Annexure P.18."
4. Thereafter, this Court by placing reliance on the same policy (Annexure P-12) held that diplomas recognized by the Govt. of India would have to be recognized by the State of Haryana.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate General has however sought to defend this exclusion on the ground that in the present case the rules specify that the person has to have the qualifications recognized by the State of Haryana. As per her, these rules would operate as exception to Annexure P-12 since that would operate only in a case where the State Govt. has not recognized any institution but where some institutions have been recognized by the State (Annexure P-12) would not be applicable.
6. In my opinion this argument can not prevail. There was no bar for the Education Department to specify in Annexure P-12 that these instructions would not be applicable where the State has itself recognized certain institutions. It can not be lost sight of that though the matter of equivalation is for an employer to decide, yet wherein the employer is a State Govt., the specialist department which could decide equivalation would normally be the Education Department. The instructions (Annexure P-12) are unequivocal and lay down in clear terms that every degree/qualification recognized by the Union of India would be ipso facto recognized by the State of Haryana. These instructions have been made because the Union of India would have more opportunity and more applicants from a more varied set of graduates of different courses and would therefore have more experience in the matter of equivalation of qualifications but the State of Haryana, or for that matter any State, would not have access to so much material. Of course if the State on examination comes to the conclusion that a particular degree or a particular diploma should not be recognized or should be de-recognized it can do so, but if no such condition has been mentioned then the instructions (Annexure P-12) would not operate against the petitioners. Once it is accepted that the certificate obtained by the petitioners is recognized by the Govt. of India it would be illegal for the State to exclude them merely on the ground that the State has never considered or taken any decision on the equivalation of the certificate.
7. Moreover this Court is bound by the decision given in Manoj Kumar''s case (supra).
8. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel.
9. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners to be eligible. Of course, at the cost of repetition, it must be added that this would not take away the right of State to take independent decision about any particular course or any particular certificate.
10. Since the man case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
