Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Gau) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) BENCH : AIZAWL
NELSON SAILO, J.
Dr. C Hmingthansanga New Siaha, Mizoram & Ors. - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Mizoram r/b The Chief Secretary Governmet of Mizoram Aizawl, Mizoram & Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 56 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalfakawma Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Mr. David Lalrinpuia, and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, Adv.

Point of Law: term “members of the service” or “in-service candidates” cannot be given a narrow interpretation to include only those persons, who are appointed under the Rules of 2009 or the pre-existing Rules

Headnote:
Mizoram Societies Registration Act, 2005 – Employment and service – Claim of compensation - Whether there was any bar in the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations on individual states - Referring to the said Office Memorandum, the learned counsel submits that with a view to avail maximum seats for PG studies at RIMS, the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department has laid down guidelines and criteria for selection of candidates for PG studies at RIMS. He submits that as per Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum, Category-I (A) comprises of regular in-service candidate with at least 2 years service in rural areas while Category-I (B) comprises of regular in-service candidate with at least not less than one year service in rural area. The private respondents are not in-service candidates and have not served in rural areas. Therefore, they are not eligible as per the Office Memorandum. The learned counsel further submits that the criteria laid down in the Office Memorandum was found to be the guidelines applicable and to be followed in respect of Government sponsorship in PG studies at RIMS in the meeting held under Chairmanship of the Minister Health & Family Welfare Department –
Finding of the Court: In case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. question before the Apex Court was whether there was any bar in the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations on individual states in providing for reservation of in-service Doctors for admission into post Graduate Medical Degree Courses. The Apex Court answered the question in negative and further held that in order to take the benefit of such separate entry channel, the aspiring in-service Doctors must clear the NEET examination with the minimum prescribed marks as stipulated in Regulations. Applying the ratio to the present case, it only appears that the separate entry channel provided to in-service regular medical graduates vide and by the Rules of 2009 in absence of any challenge or otherwise will be applicable to those covered by the said provision - Thus considering the mode of appointment of the private respondents, their educational qualification and their place of appointment, this Court is of the considered view that their sponsorship and selection for PG studies in RIMS is sustainable. Even by seeing the selection from the angle of public interest, ZMC undisputedly has been established to cater needs and requirements of the State of Mizoram in the field of Medical Science and that if Teachers working in ZMC are given opportunity to undergo in-service training, the same will naturally be in public interest. It is stated at the bar that the private respondents and also the petitioner have already got themselves admitted and are in process of preparing themselves for their first semester examination –
Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. David Lalrinpuia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the sponsoring of private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 for Post Graduate (PG) studies at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, Manipur vide Communication dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-6) and the Order dated 11.05.2020 (Annexure-7) by which they were selected the respondent No. 6 to undergo PG course.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were appointed as Medical Officers on 29.05.2019 and posted at Phura Primary Health Centre (PHC), Chawngte Community Health Centre (CHC) and Kawnpui PHC respectively. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 were appointed as Medical Officer on 23.07.2013 and were initially posted at Hnahlan PHC, Bungzung PHC, Cherhlun PHC and Vairengte PHC respectively.

4. On 05.01.2020, the petitioners along with private respondents, appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for PG courses for 7 (seven) seats reserved for the State of Mizoram at RIMS. Vide Communication dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-6), the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare Department sent the names of 6 (six) candidates including the 3 (three) private respondents to the respondent No. 5 as the sponsored in-service regular candidates. Pursuant thereto, vide the Order dated 11.05.2020 (Annexure-7), the respondent No. 6 published the list of selected candidates which included the 3 (three) private respondents besides one more candidate amongst the selected sponsored candidates from the State of Mizoram. Being aggrieved with the selection of the private respondents, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel submits that the private respondents are appointed as Demonstrators in the Mizoram Institute of Medical Education & Research (MIMER), which is now known as Zoram Medical College (ZMC) located at Falkawn, Mizoram and that they have never served in rural areas in Mizoram, so as to give preference in their favour and in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-11). Referring to the said Office Memorandum, the learned counsel submits that with a view to avail maximum seats for PG studies at RIMS, the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department has laid down guidelines and criteria for selection of candidates for PG studies at RIMS. He submits that as per Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum, Category-I (A) comprises of regular in-service candidate with at least 2 years service in rural areas while Category-I (B) comprises of regular in-service candidate with at least not less than one year service in rural area. The private respondents are not in-service candidates and have not served in rural areas. Therefore, they are not eligible as per the Office Memorandum. The learned counsel further submits that the criteria laid down in the Office Memorandum was found to be the guidelines applicable and to be followed in respect of Government sponsorship in PG studies at RIMS in the meeting held on 18.03.2019 (Annexure-12) under the Chairmanship of the Minister, Health & Family Welfare Department.

6. The learned counsel also submits that the post of Demonstrator is not an en-cadred post under the Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009) (Annexure-13). The learned counsel submits that Rule 21 of the Rules of 2009 provides for training and further studies wherein it has been specifically provided that the sponsorship to undergo further studies, such as PG, Diploma, Degree or Post-doctoral studies are available to the members of the service and that the private respondents are appointed as Demonstrators under the ZMC which is r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document