K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE selection criteria for the appointment to the post of Unani Dispenser is challenged at the instance of two unsuccessful candidates on the ground that the fourth respondent who was selected did not have the requisite qualification.
(2.) THE advertisement issued by the Haryana State Selection Commission through advertisement No. 2 of 2006 published on 8.2.2006 set down the following criteria for the post of Unani Dispenser: i) Unani Dispenser from any recognized University/Institution or board or Faculty of Indian System of Medicines established by law in India or Up -Vaidya of any recognized University/Institutions or board or Faculty of Indian System of Medicine established by law in India having the knowledge of Urdu. ii) Matric or its equivalent. iii) Knowledge of Hindi or English upto Matric standard. The contention of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent has qualified in Up -Vaidya from a recognized University but is not known to have qualified through any examination that imparted knowledge of Urdu. The petitioners contention is that the prescription for Unani system of examination will be drawn up in Urdu and the fourth respondent who has no knowledge in the said language could not have been appointed to the post.
(3.) THE statement has been filed both by the State as well as the Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (third respondent). The State has filed a written statement contended that the fourth respondent has knowledge of Urdu and his selection was therefore appropriate. The third respondent has also asserted that the fourth respondent has knowledge of Urdu. The counsel appearing for them point out that one of the of the criteria is merely a knowledge of Urdu and no formal degree or certificate was required as per the eligibility considerations set out through the advertisement. The respondents further contends that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had obtained 38.21 and 39.36 marks respectively against 44.58 marks of the last selected candidates in general category and hence, the petitioners were not in the zone of consideration at all to challenge the selection made of the fourth respondent.;