- (1.) V. K. Gupta, C. J. In the writ petition filed by the peti tioners (appellants herein), the stipula tion in the Advertisement in question to the effect that only such candidates would be eligible for participating in the written examination who have obtained Two Year Diploma Certificate from un recognised Training Institutions of Uttarakhand and other States was chal lenged.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge has dis missed the writ petition vide the im pugned judgment dated 19th February, 2008 on the ground that the written examination had already been conducted in the month of December, 2007 and practical examination had also been conducted by the Department con cerned. On 9th April, 2008, when the Di vision Bench was seized of this Special Appeal, the following direction was issued "before we proceed any further in this matter, we call upon respond ent No. 1 and 2 to file counter affi davit in answer to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the respondents shall specifically deal with the issue as to why, under what circum stances and for what reasons was the eligibility criterion confined and restricted to such institutions which were unrecognized by the Govern ment of Uttarakhand as well as by the Governments of other States. In other words why did the Govern ment of Uttarakhand in the adver tisement in question exclude the can didates who had obtained the two years diploma qualification from such institutions which might have been recognised by the other State Governments. Original record of the State Govern ment leading to the aforesaid deci sion being taken shall also be pro duced for our perusal. " In compliance of the aforesaid di rection, a short counter affidavit has been filed by In-charge, Director Gen eral, Medical, Health and Family Wel fare, Uttarakhand. In this affidavit, the aforesaid observation and query of this Court has been dealt with and replied in para 4 which reads thus : "4. That the decision was taken in view of the fact that those candi dates who are Domicile of Uttarakhand and have diploma course from the recognised institute for already entitled to be registered as Lab Technician in "uttarakhand State Medical Faculty" and they are not required to undergo any further training for this purpose, but in the ordinary course, those persons who have not obtained diploma from the recognized Institution are not entitled to be registered with the "uttarakhand State Medical Fac ulty". This rule has been formulated for the benefit of those persons of Uttarakhand domicile having two year diploma from the unrecognized Institute, so that they may be given a chance after clearing evaluation test and training course of three months and may have an opportu nity to be registered as Lab Techni cian with "uttarakhand State Medi cal Faculty". The rules have been framed according to the policy of the Uttarakhand State. Govt. copy of the proceeding of meeting dated 22/04/2006 is being annexed herewith marked as Annexure SCA-1 to this affidavit. "
(3.) WE are not at all satisfied with the explanation offered. WE are totally convinced that the impugned stipula tion in the Advertisement in question has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Why should the State Government insist that only such candidates will be eligible to participate in the examination, who have obtained Two Year Diploma Certificate from the unrecognized institutions? Excluding recognised institutions and insisting upon unrecognised institutions is the height of arbitrary action, the same also being irrational and illogical, on the part of the State Government. It is a common knowledge that unrecog nized institutions are also unregulated and whatever qualification they impart, or Diploma Certificates they issue, cannot have any authenticity in the eyes of law. In most of the States, the insistence is upon recognised institu tions. It is for the first time that this Court has come across an instance where the State Government is insist ing on unrecognized institutions. WE do not find either any logic or any rea soning behind this insistence. Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness. Any illogi cal or irrational action of the State Gov ernment also amounts to an arbitrary action. The explanation in para 4 of the counter affidavit (supra) that the afore said provision was formulated for the benefit of those persons of Uttarakhand domicile who had obtained Two Years Diploma from unrecognized institutions, is neither acceptable nor logical in the face of undisputed fact that such persons who had obtained diplomas from recog nised institutions, such as the appellants/petitioners were available. Rather than the State Government discouraging peo ple from going to unrecognized institu tions, the impugned stipulation does the opposite. Actually the impugned stipula tion excludes the candidates who ob tained qualifications from recognised in stitutions. This is absolutely unacceptable to us because it patently violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;