2019 Supreme(SC) 1376

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9482 of 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12245 of 2017]
Decided On : 17-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging selection process after having failed in it – However, a candidate by agreeing to participate in selection process only accepts prescribed procedure and not illegality in it.
(2) Rule 5 & 6(iii) of Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 construed to include experience gained by a doctor in any hospital run by Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other non-private hospital (including those run by Central Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions; or other public authorities) within territory of Bihar.
(3) If ordinary meaning of text of such law is non-conducive for objects sought to be achieved, it must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency
Cases Referred:
Dr. Dharmbir Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2015 (2) PLJR 916 – Referred.
Ram Surat Mishra v. State of U.P., (2008) 7 SCC 409 – Referred.
M/s J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1534 – Referred.
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 – Relied.
Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC] – Relied.
Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.[(2007) 11 SCC 522] – Relied.
Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171] – Relied.
K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515] – Relied.
Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271 – Relied.
Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583 – Relied.
Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR 829 – Relied.
FCC v. AT&T Inc. 562 U.S. 397 (2011) – Relied.
R v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 – Relied.
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 – Relied.
.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Selection – Estoppel – Principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging selection process after having failed in it – However, a candidate by agreeing to participate in selection process only accepts prescribed procedure and not illegality in it – In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it – Constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible – In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail incurable illegality or derogation of provisions of Constitution, unless he/she participates in selection process. (Paras 17 and 18)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rules of Construction – As a first step, Courts ought to interpret text of provision and construct it literally – Provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its words a common textual meaning – However, this tool of interpretation can only be applied in cases where text of enactment is susceptible to only one meaning – Nevertheless, in a situation where there is ambiguity in meaning of text, Courts must also give due regard to consequences of interpretation taken – It is responsibility of Courts to interpret text in a manner which eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly – A legislation must further its objectives and not create any confusion or friction in the system – If ordinary meaning of text of such law is non-conducive for objects sought to be achieved, it must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency – Executive actions like advertisements can neither expand nor restrict scope or object of laws – Grammatical rules must be given due weightage during statutory interpretation. (Paras 21, 22, 23 and 24)

(C) Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 – Rule 6(iii) – Selection and appointment as General Medical Officer in State of Bihar – Exclusion of work experience acquired in Army Hospital – Medicine being an applied science cannot be mastered by mere academic knowledge – Longer experience of a candidate adds to his knowledge and expertise – Similarly, government hospitals differ from private hospitals vastly for former have unique infrastructural constraints and deal with poor masses – Doctors in such non-private hospitals serve a public purpose by giving medical treatment to swarms of patients, in return for a meagre salary – When placing emphasis on requirement of work experience, there is no dispute on such recognition of government hospitals and private hospitals as distinct classes – Instead such recognition ensures that doctors recruited in not so rich states like Bihar have requisite exposure to challenges faced in those regions – Appellant has rightly not challenged selection procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against respondents’ interpretation of ‘work experience’ as part of merit determination – Since interpretation of a statute or rule is the exclusive domain of Courts and given scope of judicial review in delineating such criteria, appellant’s challenge cannot be turned down at threshold. (Paras 19 and 20)

(D) Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 – Rule 6(iii) – Selection and appointment as General Medical Officer in State of Bihar – Exclusion of work experience acquired in Army Hospital – Constitution envisages setting up of hospitals by many different public authorities, including Central Government, State Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions – Several hospitals throughout country have been set up by instrumentalities of Central or State Governments, more notably Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospitals, to cater to need of poor and needy persons – These hospitals are at par with other government hospitals for all intents and purposes and experience gained by a doctor in such hospitals subsume characteristics acquired in a hospital set up by Bihar Government – Any attempt to discriminate between hospitals run by State Government and the Central Government or Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions is bound to hit very ethos of our Constitutional governance setup – Rule 5 & 6(iii) of Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 construed to include experience gained by a doctor in any hospital run by Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other non-private hospital (including those run by Central Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions; or other public authorities) within territory of Bihar – Respondents directed to rework and prepare a fresh merit list by granting due weightage to appellant and other similarly placed candidates, within two months. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No. 1860/2016, whereby appellant’s work experience in an Army Hospital was not considered for grant of weightage and consequential selection and appointment as General Medical Officer in the State of Bihar, on the ground that Rule 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 mandated that only services rendered in employment of a hospital run by the Government of Bihar could count under the head of work experience.

Findings of Court:

Equality does not imply that there can be no classification. Instead, sometimes it may be necessary to treat unequals unequally, for equal treatment of persons with unequal circumstances creates an unjust situation. Such classification, however, must not be arbitrary but rationally founded on some quality or characteristics which are identifiable within the class of people so created and absent in those excluded from such classification.

Result : Appeal allowed.