IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, JJ.
Rajneesh Ranjan, Son of Kamal Nayan Gopal and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8800 of 2020
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Bihar District Ayush Medical/State Ayush Medical Service (Appointment on Regular/Contract Basis and Service Conditions) Rules, 2010 – Rule 4 to 7 with 2017 (Amendment) Rules – Rule 4(e), 2019 (Amendment) Rules and 2021 (Amendment) Rules, deleting Rule 7 of 2010 Rules – Recruitment of Ayush Medical Officers – Petitioners claiming that the recruitment be done through open competitive examination, as it earlier stood under Rules 7 of 2010 Rules and not by selection on marks basis – It is now well settled that it is for the recruiting agency to stipulate the procedure for selecting the candidates – It is only when the procedure is patently illegal that the Court would interfere – For selecting candidates, written test can certainly be treated as a good method, but there is nothing in law which mandates that written test is the only method to select the candidates – Rules as exist on today do not provide for competitive examination, as provided by Rule 7 of 2010 Rules which stands deleted in June, 2021 and, as such, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not be in a position to issue the advertisement containing the clause for conducting the competitive examination – Naturally, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will issue the advertisement as per the Rules existing as on date which provides for the procedure for selection which is already there in the impugned advertisement – Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be a futile exercise to set aside the advertisement and to give direction to the respondent authority to issue fresh advertisement as per the Rules existing as on date, which provide for preparation of merit-list on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in their qualifying examination at Graduate and Post-Graduate level and on the basis of work experience and not on the basis of any competitive examination – No interference needed – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 30 & 39)
Dr. Shah Faesal Vs. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1 – Referred.
Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Swapna, (2005) 4 SCC-154; Assam Public Service Commission Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma, (2020) 20 SCC 680; State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna Vs. Archana Kumari, L.P.A. No. 238 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024; Municipal Council, Palai Vs. T.J. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 1561; Yogendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 631; Dr. Dharmbir Kumar Vs. State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna, 2015 (2) PLJR 916; Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar, 2020 (1) BLJ 276 (SC) : (2019) 20 SCC 17 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) :
The present petition has been placed before us pursuant to the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for placing this matter before a larger Bench. Hon’ble The Chief Justice, therefore, directed the office to place this petition before the present Division Bench.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which they have prayed for the following relief/s:-
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for read down/struck down the Clause-4 of Advertisement No. 4/2020 to 09/2020 which relates to selection process on marks basis.
(iii) For any other relief/reliefs if petitioner found entitle in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:-
3.1. Petitioners claim to be holding the degree of Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S.) from recognized institutions.
3.2. The Bihar Technical Service Commission (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as Commission), on the basis of the requisition sent by the Health Department, Government of Bihar, has issued a notice containing advertisement Nos. 4 of 2020 to 9 of 2020 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Unani Medical Officer, Homeopathic Medical Officer, Ayush Physician (Ayurvedic), Ayush Physician (Unani), Ayush Physician (Homeopathy) in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade-pay of Rs. 5400/L-9. A total of 3270 posts have been advertised.
3.3. Clause-4 of the advertisement provides the process of selection from which it is revealed that the merit-list is to be prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in their qualifying examination, i.e. B.A.M.S., B.U.M.S., B.H.M.S., Post Graduation (M.D./M.S. or Higher Education) and the points of work experience acquired by them while working on their engagement on contractual basis in recognized Government Hospitals/Institutions. Following is the break-up of weightage as mentioned in the advertisement against the 3 attributes:-
| (i) | Weightage on the basis of score in BAMS/BUMS/BHMS | 60 Marks |
| (ii) | Weightage on the basis of Post Graduation degree, higher qualification (MD/MS Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathy or higher degree) | 15 Marks |
| (iii) | Weightage for work experience after appointment on contractual basis in Government institutions/hospitals (5 marks for each year of completion of work experience, maximum 25 marks) | 25 Marks |
|
| Total | 100 Marks |
3.4. The petitioners have, therefore, preferred the present petition challenging the aforesaid advertisement and the process of selection disclosed by the respondent authorities in the aforesaid advertisement.
4. Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sanket, Mr. Alok Anand and Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Mr. Birju Prasad, G.P. 13 for the respondent State assisted by Mrs. Shweta Anand and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Mr. Nikesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Commission, Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned counsel for intervenor respondent Nos. 5 to 11 assisted by Mr. Rishi Raj Ranjan and Mr. Kunal, Mr. Chakrapani, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 13 and 14 assisted by Mr. Madhuresh Singh and Mr. Dipak Kumar.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has mainly raised the following contentions-
5.1. Learned Senior Counsel has referred Bihar District Ayush Medical/State Ayush Medical Servic
Assam Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Ors.
Municipal Council, Palai Vs. T.J. Joseph
Yogendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Dr. Dharmbir Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna & Ors.
Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Swapna & Ors.
The court established that amendments to recruitment rules can change the selection process, and the discretion of the recruiting agency in determining the method of selection is upheld unless found ....
The principle that candidates do not acquire a vested right to appointment but have a legitimate expectation to be evaluated according to the rules in effect at the time of their application, and tha....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer must be in accordance with the prescribed procedure, fair-play, and justice, a....
Point of Law : Selecting body does not have its right to alter the procedure for selection than what is prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.