Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.
VINOD SAINI — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 7060 of 2016
Decided on : 14-08-2018
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLENESS - MEDICAL OFFICERS WITH MBBS DEGREE AND AYURVED CHIKITSADHIKARI WITH BAMS DEGREE - REDUCTION OF PROBATION TRAINING PERIOD - DIFFERENT TREATMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Ayurved Chikitsadhikari (Ayurvedic Medical Officers), challenged the constitutional validity of a notification that substituted the proviso below Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The new proviso reduced the probation training period for Medical Officers with MBBS degrees to one year instead of two, considering their one year of internship. The petitioners argued that this classification was discriminatory and arbitrary as they also possessed a one-year internship and should be treated similarly.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the classification made by the State Government was reasonable and justified. The object of the State Government in reducing the probation period for MBBS Medical Officers was to ensure the availability of sufficient doctors in rural areas, where they faced competition from more opportunities in the private sector.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification made by the State Government, treating Medical Officers with MBBS degrees differently from Ayurved Chikitsadhikari with BAMS degrees in terms of probation training period, was reasonable and justified under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners, as Ayurved Chikitsadhikari, were entitled to the same reduction in probation period as MBBS Medical Officers, considering their one-year internship.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the seven-point test laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara to determine the reasonableness of the classification: - Presumption of constitutionality - Absence of classification or arbitrary targeting - Legitimate purposes for classification - Reasonable classification based on real and substantial distinction - No arbitrary or baseless classification 2. The court found that the classification was reasonable as it was based on a real and substantial distinction between Medical Officers with MBBS degrees and Ayurved Chikitsadhikari with BAMS degrees. This distinction was related to the object sought to be achieved, which was to attract more MBBS doctors to rural areas.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the notification that reduced the probation training period for MBBS Medical Officers. The court found that the classification made by the State Government was reasonable and justified under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
This writ petition has been filed by 93 writ petitioners questioning the constitutional validity of Notification dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure-7) whereby proviso existing below Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rajasthan Service Rules') was substituted by another proviso to the effect that in cases of Medical Officer of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service, Senior Demonstrator and Assistant Professor of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch), who possess MBBS degree and have spent one year in internship, the period of Probation Training shall be one year instead of two years. Earlier proviso had used the word, "Medical Officer" whereas new proviso has qualified it by providing that "Medical Officer of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service, Senior Demonstrator and Assistant Professor of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch)". The petitioners, who have approached this Court, are working on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari. However, their designation was earlier Ayurved Chikitsak, but vide amendment brought in the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules of 1973') vide Notification dated 07.05.2010, the same was changed to Ayurved Chikitsadhikari. In the writ petition therefore the petitioners have called themselves as Ayurved Medical Officer instead of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari.
2. Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are possessing degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (for short 'BAMS'), which has been awarded to them after successful completion of internship of one year. It is submitted that they were appointed on the aforesaid posts in pursuance of Advertisement dated 01.06.2013 vide three different orders dated 11.12.2015, 18.02.2016 and 29.03.2016 in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400/- on probation for a period of two years, during which period they were to receive fix salary of Rs. 22,180/-. It is submitted that the Finance Department while amending Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules added a proviso vide Notification dated 26.12.2011 to the effect that in case of Medical Officer, the period of probation training should be one year instead of two years as they spent one year in internship. This proviso would equally apply to the petitioners as they are also Medical Officers. Reliance is placed on the definition of "Medical Officer" given in Rule 4(3) of the Rajasthan Medical Officers and Nursing Staff Fees Rules, 2011 (for short 'the Fees Rules of 2011') promulgated vide Notification dated 30.05.2011. It is argued that the Fees Rules of 2011 would also be binding on the respondents as this set of rules has been promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Reference is also made to order dated 24.12.2011 by which candidates were appointed on the post of Medical Officers pursuant to their selection by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with fixed salary of Rs. 30,000/- on probation for a period of two years, which also included period of one year spent on internship. As such probation period was reduced to one year. It is argued that the petitioners, who possess degree of BAMS, having been appointed on the post of Ayurved Medical Officer, are identically situate with those Medical Officers, who possess degree of MBBS and fall in the same category. Therefore, the action of the respondents in treating them differently is wholly discriminatory and arbitrary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment dated 29.04.2009 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Dr. Vinod Saini & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 414/2009) directing payment of equivalent amount as stipend to the students of Indian System of Medicine (Ayurvedic) on the rates revised for the students of Modern System of Medic
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
