Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH : AIZAWL
NELSON SAILO, J.
Dr Aldy Lalruatpuia Khatla South, Aizawl, Mizoram – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram – Respondent
WP(C) No. 87 OF 2021
Decided on : 17-06-2022
Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 - Rule 10(4), 9(2) - MPSC (Limitation of Functions) Regulations - Regulation 3(f), 4(c), 4(3) - Termination/extension of service - Jurisdiction - Other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience of at least (1) one year - Whether marks for rural area experience is to be given to those Doctors who have such experience of at least 1 (one) year in terms of the relevant provisions under the Rules of 2009 and Regulations of 2012 - Even though an Act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction but the same will subsist and remain fully effective unless and until it is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. (Para 12)
Findings of the Court :
Court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question has to sub-serve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory - But when a provision of law relates to the performance of any public duty and the invalidation of any act done in disregard of that provision causes serious prejudice to those for whose benefit it is enacted and at the same time, who have no control over performance of the duty, such provision should be treated as a directory one - In present case, it may however be seen that the word “shall” has been used in the Regulations of 2012 in relation to the preference with weightage of 5% of the total marks for experience as Medical Officer in rural areas - The Rules of 2009 at Rule 10(4) provides that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience for at least one year - The Regulations of 2012 has been framed in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009 and therefore, it cannot override or prevail over provisions of the Rules of 2009 - Therefore, Regulations 4(3) has to be read and understood to mean that only when the candidates are on equal footing or at par, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience as further specified in Regulations of 2012.
Result – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. J.C Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A.R Malhotra learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
2. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the case is that the petitioner is a Graduate in Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) who obtained the Degree in the year 2011 and he is registered under the Mizoram State Medical Counsel. The petitioner was engaged as Epidemiologist/Medical Officer under the National Programme for Prevention and Control Of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS) by of Office of the Mission Director, National Health Mission vide engagement dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure-3) initially for a period of 1 (one) year subject to termination/extension of service based on performance. The service of the petitioner was thereafter continued and vide Office Order dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure-4), he was transferred from Kolasib to Thingsai Public Health Centre (PHC), Thingsai. Since then, he is working at Thingsai PHC. On 18.11.2020 (Annexure-5), the MPSC floated Advertisement No. 6/2020-2021 for filling up of 5 posts in the Grade-III of the Mizoram Health Service (MHS). One of the condition stipulated in the advertisement for the purpose of the present writ petition is that preference is to be given for those who have rendered prior rural areas service. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and underwent the selection process. However, when the results were declared by the MPSC vide Notification dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure-7), the petitioner found himself to be at Serial No. 1 in the panel list. Aggrieved, he filed an RTI application seeking information from the MPSC as to whether preference was given to those who rendered services in rural areas apart from other queries. Before a reply was made to his application, the Health & Family Welfare Department issued the impugned Notification dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure-9) appointing 5 (five) Doctors including the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the Grade-III post of the MHS. Thereafter, vide Communication dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-10), the petitioner was given the information he sought for through RTI wherein it was stated that there was no requirement for applying the preference clause as the relevant Rules provided that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience of at least 1 (one) year. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application before the Controller of the Examination of the MPSC on 23.08.2021 (Annexure-II) requesting for re-evaluation of his marks as he was not given weightage for the services rendered by him in rural areas as provided under Regulation 4(3) of the Mizoram Health Service (Competitive Examination) Regulations, 2012 (Regulation of 2012). In response to his application, the petitioner was informed vide Communication dated 01.09.2021 that the recruitment process was conducted properly and that the same did not require any change or modification. To support the case of the petitioner, the Mizoram Government Doctors Association through its President also submitted a representation to the respondent No. 1 on 15.09.2021 (Annexure-13) requesting re-evaluation of the appointment process of Grade-III of the MHS. However, as nothing materialized, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009) recruitment to the service in Grade-III is 100% by way of Direct Recruitment which is to be conducted by the MPSC in accordance with regulation notified for the purpose. He submits that Rule 10(4) importantly provides that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural are
SupremeToday
State regulations regarding post-graduate medical course admissions supersede national standards, and weightage for rural service is not a statutory right.
The court affirmed the necessity of extending admission incentives to all in-service medical professionals, not just specific categories, upholding public interest and compliance with MCI regulations....
Weightage for medical admissions based on rural service is permissible only for candidates serving in difficult rural areas, as established by statutory provisions and prior judgments.
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
Point of Law : Educational qualification - Mode of appointment of private respondents - Candidate must be an Indian national holding MBBS degree or equivalent from a Medical College/Institute recogni....
Imposing mandatory rural service for admission to postgraduate medical courses is arbitrary, creates unjustified reservations, and infringes the rights of qualified non-in-service candidates.
Merit must prevail in admission to postgraduate medical courses; state can implement service quotas, but must not dilute merit standards.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
