In a significant ruling concerning recruitment under the Haryana Health Department, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that candidates who served under the National Health Mission (NHM) on posts such as Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) and Para Medical Worker (PMW) cannot be denied experience marks merely because they did not work on the exact post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male). Justice Sandeep Moudgil delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of petitions led by Sandeep v. State of Haryana and Others (CWP-27946-2019), along with connected matters. Background of the Dispute The controversy arose from recruitment initiated through Advertisement No. 1 of 2015 for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male) in Haryana. Under a revised selection criterion, candidates were entitled to additional marks for experience gained under RCH/NRHM/NHM projects. The petitioners contended that despite possessing several years of experience under NHM and producing valid experie...
Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants NHM Experience Benefit to MPHW Candidates, Orders Merit Recalculation
In a significant ruling concerning recruitment under the Haryana Health Department, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that candidates who served under the National Health Mission (NHM) on posts such as Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) and Para Medical Worker (PMW) cannot be denied experience marks merely because they did not work on the exact post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male).
Justice Sandeep Moudgil delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of petitions led by Sandeep v. State of Haryana and Others (CWP-27946-2019), along with connected matters.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy arose from recruitment initiated through Advertisement No. 1 of 2015 for the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male) in Haryana. Under a revised selection criterion, candidates were entitled to additional marks for experience gained under RCH/NRHM/NHM projects.
The petitioners contended that despite possessing several years of experience under NHM and producing valid experience certificates, they were denied experience marks solely because they had worked as Senior Treatment Supervisors and Para Medical Workers rather than as MPHW (Male).
According to the petitioners, had these experience marks been awarded, they would have entered the zone of selection.
State's Stand
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission argued that experience marks were admissible only for service rendered in the "same capacity" as the advertised post. Since the petitioners had not worked specifically as MPHW (Male), they were held ineligible for experience marks.
The State further contended that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the criteria and could not challenge it after being unsuccessful.
Court's Findings
Rejecting the respondents' interpretation, the Court observed that:
- Candidates similarly situated to the petitioners had already been granted experience marks in connected cases.
- The Health Department itself had clarified that the duties performed by STS and PMW personnel were substantially similar to those of MPHW (Male).
- Government records showed that many functions now performed by contractual NHM staff were historically discharged by MPHW workers.
- The qualification requirements for STS were higher than those prescribed for MPHW (Male).
- The recruitment criteria specifically contemplated experience gained under NHM projects and did not restrict benefits only to regular cadre employees.
The Court held that once the authorities themselves acknowledged similarity in duties and had granted benefits to other candidates with comparable experience, denying the same benefit to the petitioners amounted to discrimination.
Violation of Articles 14 and 16
The High Court concluded that the refusal to award experience marks was:
- Arbitrary,
- Discriminatory, and
- Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court emphasized that recruitment authorities cannot apply eligibility criteria inconsistently or selectively among similarly situated candidates.
Directions Issued
The High Court:
- Set aside the recruitment result dated 05.06.2019 to the extent it denied experience marks to the petitioners.
- Directed the respondents to award experience marks for service rendered as STS and PMW under NHM.
- Ordered recalculation of the petitioners' merit positions.
- Directed that if they fall within the selection zone after recalculation, they shall be granted appointment along with consequential benefits.
- Ordered completion of the exercise within two months.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is likely to have wider implications for NHM and contractual health workers across Haryana. The ruling reinforces the principle that functional similarity of duties, rather than mere nomenclature of posts, should determine entitlement to experience benefits in public recruitment processes.
The judgment may also encourage similarly placed candidates who were denied experience marks despite performing comparable duties under government health schemes to seek parity and reconsideration of their claims.
Case: Sandeep v. State of Haryana & Others (CWP-27946-2019) with connected matters
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Judge: Sandeep Moudgil
Decision Date: 29 May 2026
Result: Writ Petitions Allowed; Experience Marks Directed to be Granted.
Comments
Post a Comment