SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ, Partha Sarthy, J.
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Son of Sri Vishwanath Prasad - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.585 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15491 of 2019, Letters Patent Appeal No. 586 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13410 of 2019
Decided On : 22-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.D. Yadav (AAG-9) Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG-9 Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate Md. Akram Naiyar, Advocate, Mr. P.K Shahi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K.K Sinha, Advocate, Mrs. Sarita Bajaj, Advocate

The National Health Mission's guidelines on eligibility for Community Health Officer courses are binding, and the State cannot alter these criteria without authority.

Headnote:(A) National Health Mission Guidelines - Eligibility for Community Health Officer - The court addressed the eligibility of Unani and Homeopathic practitioners to join a six-month Community Health course, which was restricted to Ayurveda and nursing graduates. The State's concession allowing their inclusion was deemed inconsequential as it contradicted the National Health Mission's directives. (Paras 2, 6, 9)

(B) Appeal Maintainability - The court affirmed that an appeal is maintainable when a necessary party is not included in the original proceedings, provided leave to appeal is granted. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a writ petition concerning the eligibility of Unani and Homeopathic doctors for a Community Health course, which was limited to Ayurveda and nursing graduates. The State's concession allowing their participation was contested.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the State Government lacked authority to alter eligibility criteria set by the National Health Mission, leading to the conclusion that the concession was invalid.

Issues: The main issues included the authority of the State to modify eligibility criteria and the maintainability of the appeal due to the absence of necessary parties in the original proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the National Health Mission's guidelines must be followed strictly, and the State's concession was not binding. The appeal was maintainable as the appellant was prejudiced by the original order.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned judgment set aside.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.

1. The appeal has been filed with an application for leave numbered as I.A. No. 1 of 2022, which has been allowed by order dated 28.04.2023.

Re: I.A. No. 3 of 2022 (in both LPA No. 585 of 2022 and LPA No. 586 of 2022)

2. The present interlocutory application is for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which delay is of 2 years 11 months and 24 days. The subject matter in the writ petition was as to whether the Unani and Homeopathic doctors would be entitled to join the six months’ course in Community Health, which is a requirement, if selected as a Community Health Officer (CHO) under the directions issued by the National Health Mission. The National Health Missions’ directives only included Ayurveda, B.Sc. Nursing and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) to be entitled to apply for the course. The Advertisement No. 4 of 2019 dated 19.05.2019 also entitled only the above mentioned qualified persons to apply for the post of Community Health Officer; who on appointment had to undergo the six months’ certificate course in Community Health. The writ petition was filed by two persons, CWJC No. 13410 of 2019 filed by a Homeopath and CWJC No. 15491 of 2019 filed by an Unani practitioner.

3. The learned Single Judge found, on the concession of the State Government that even Unani practitioners and Homeopaths would be entitled to participate in the six months certificate course in Community Health for which Advertisement No. 4 of 2019 was issued. The same ran contrary to the directions issued by the National Health Mission. The advertisement was proceeded with and the appellant came to know of this restriction only later. As of now some persons have been selected and the appellant is in the waiting list. If the Unani practitioners and Homeopaths are allowed to be considered, the appellant may lose his chance for selection. It is hence the appeal was filed with leave and the proceedings indicate that none of the affected parties were made parties in the writ petition i.e., those who were qualified to apply as per the notification and as per the directives of the National Health Mission. It is in such circumstance that delay has occasioned which we find to have been explained satisfactorily. We hence condone the delay.

Re: LPA No. 585 of 2022 and LPA No. 586 of 2022

4. We have noticed the manner in which the judgment was passed on the concession of the State Government, which permitted Unani practitioners and the Homeopaths to apply under Advertisement No. 4 of 2019. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri P.K Shahi points out that the State Health Society after the judgment wrote to the National Health Mission on 09.11.2019 with respect to the concession made before the High Court regarding Unani practitioners and Homeopaths. The National Health Mission replied on 17.12.2019 as per Annexure-5 produced in I.A. No. 4 of 2023. The subject dealt with was the request from the State for inclusion of Unani practitioners and Homeopaths in the certificate programme in Community Health. It has been categorically stated that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is of the stand that the GNMs/ B.Sc. Nursing Graduates or Ayurveda practitioners or B.Sc. in Community Health are to be enrolled for CPCH being offered by IGNOU or similar certificate courses offered by State Health Universities and this is based on the recommendations of the expert group. In such circumstances, the Ministry also apprised the State Government to file a review. The State Government has now filed a review, which the learned Senior Counsel who is also the Advocate General of the State submits would be withdrawn on the appeal being allowed or considered.

5. As far as the proceedings on review, the application for stay filed in the review application was rejected against which an appeal was filed as LPA No. 1 of 2021 which was disposed of as per Annexure-1. Annexure-1 considered the entire matter and noticed the stand of the Central Government which was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top