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