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

2022 Supreme(Gau) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
DR. ANJAR MUHAMMAD TAPADAR S/O- MOHBOOBUR ROB TAPADAR - Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 914 of 2022
Decided On : 07-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri J.M.A. Choudhury, Advocate,
For the Respondent: Shri B. Gogoi

Point of Law : Expression "continuous" was a requirement for 5 years service, the said requirement appears to have been done away with consciously in the Rules of 2012 which is holding the field as on date.

Headnote:

Seeking implement - Service rendered - Petitioner is an aspirant for Post Graduate Course in Medical Science - Petitioner had obtained his MBBS from Assam Medical College - A notice was issued by DME, Assam for counseling for admission into 50 % of Post Graduate Seats in Medical Colleges of Assam under State Quota for Session 2021 to be held as per Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission of Post Graduate Course) Rules, 2006 as amended - Said notice was issued pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WP, subject matter of which was challenging vires of Rules of 2021 - Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a notification, wherein the name of petitioner figures against Serial - By the said notification, issued by Department, no objection was conveyed for named officers for appearing in Post Graduate Entrance Examination - Whether period of service rendered by petitioner should be taken into consideration while reckoning his total length of service rendered in a rural area.

Finding of the Court:

In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration all the attending facts & circumstances, this Court directs that case of petitioner be reconsidered and in doing so, rejection should not be on account of lack of service of 5 years in a Rural Area as stipulated by the Rule - This Court is also of view that since petitioner stands applicants who are seeking implement in the merit list, the authorities are also at liberty to take any consequential action as merit has to be given priority - If as recorded by Hon'ble Division Bench in order petitioner can be accommodated without disturbing three applicants, that option can also be explored by authorities which has to be within permissible limits as per law - As regards the submission of Department for requirement though it appears that in an intermediate amendment made, expression "continuous" was a requirement for 5 years’ service, said requirement appears to have been done away with consciously in Rules of 2012 which is holding field as on date.

Result: Writ petition accordingly stands allowed.

JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard Shri J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department appearing for all the respondents. Also heard Shri I. Rafique, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed the I.A. No. 457/2022 for impleadment as party respondent no. 5, 6 & 7.

2. The petitioner is an aspirant for the Post Graduate Course in Medical Science. In 2015, the petitioner had obtained his MBBS from the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. On 19.01.2022, a notice was issued by the DME, Assam for counseling for admission into 50 % of Post Graduate Seats in the Medical Colleges of Assam under the State Quota for the Session 2021 to be held as per the Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission of Post Graduate Course) Rules, 2006 as amended upto 2012. The said notice was issued pursuant to an order dated 19.01.2022, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 211/2022, the subject matter of which was challenging the vires of the Rules of 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a notification dated 01.12.2021, wherein the name of the petitioner figures against Serial No. 14. By the said notification, issued by the Department, no objection was conveyed for the named officers for appearing in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination. The Counseling was accordingly held and in the list dated 30.01.2022, the petitioner was shown to be selected and his name reflected against Serial No. 431.

3. On the same date, an Educational Notice dated 30.01.2022 was issued by the DME, scheduling the dates for admission as 01.02.2022 and 02.02.2022. On the next date i.e. 31.01.2022, a notice was published by the DME fixing 04.02.2022 as the date for verification of the documents. However, in the Admission Notice dated 04.02.2022, published by the DME, the name of the petitioner was missing, though no discernible reasons were assigned for such non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner. However, the petitioner could unofficially learn that in the understanding of the authorities, the petitioner did not complete the requirement of 5 years service in rural areas in the State which the pre-condition for availing the State Quota.

4. Assailing the said decision, Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to two certificates issued by the competent authority to demonstrate that the purported reason to exclude the name of the petitioner is apparently erroneous. In the first certificate which is dated 20.12.2021, the Joint Director of Health Services, Dima Hasao has certified that the petitioner had worked in the MMU Langting PHC (difficult area) w.e.f. 20.04.2015 to 19.04.2016 as a Medical Officer, MBBS for a period of one year. By the second certificate dated 17.12.2021, the Joint Director of Health services, Karimganj has certified that the petitioner had served as a Medical and Health Officer in the village Baraigram Mini PHC which is admittedly a rural area.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the contents of the aforesaid two certificates or the certificates for that matter are not matters of dispute. Therefore, by reckoning the period of service rendered till 31.05.2021, which is the cut-off date, the petitioner fully qualifies the requirement of serving for five years in a rural area.

6. By referring to the Rules of 2006 which have been amended in the year 2012, the learned counsel submits that under the existing Rule-4, the reservation was made for the State Health Quota for eligible persons who have completed 5(five) years or more service in rural areas and such service is required to be completed as on 31st of May of the year admission and the certificate is to be submitted in Appendix-III. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though Appendix-III has been specifically provided for giving such a certificate, the earlier period of service admitt

    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