IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, JJ.
Rasna Agrawal W/o Dr. Avinash Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5650 of 2024
Decided on : 03-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951 - Amendment to Rule 56 - Discrimination against BDS degree holders in superannuation age - The court found that the amendment allowing MBBS degree holders to retire at 62 years while excluding BDS degree holders was discriminatory and violative of constitutional rights. (Paras 1, 2, 7, 11)
(B) Equal Protection - The court emphasized that both MBBS and BDS degree holders are recruited through the same process and perform similar duties, thus should not be treated differently regarding retirement age. (Paras 3.1, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a BDS degree holder, challenged the amendment to Rule 56 which allowed MBBS degree holders to retire at 62 years while setting the retirement age for BDS holders at 60 years. The petitioner argued this was discriminatory.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the amendment was discriminatory and ordered that BDS degree holders should also be allowed to retire at 62 years.
Issues: The main issues were whether the amendment to Rule 56 was discriminatory and whether the petitioner should be allowed to retire at 62 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification made by the state lacked intelligible differentia and was thus unconstitutional.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was permitted to continue in service until the age of 62 years.
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5821/2023), decided on 26.02.2024 and therefore, prayed that similar order may also be passed in the case at hand.
1.1. In the case of Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra), this Court passed the following order:-
“1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:-
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-
(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the proviso to Rule 56 of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules 1951 as inserted by amendment dated 31.03.2016 as it relates to superannuation in respect of MBBS Degree holder officer of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service may kindly be declared discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and same be declared as ultra vires and the respondents may kindly be directed to amend/include Medical Officers (Dental) holding BDS Degree in the proviso so that their age of superannuation shall also be 62 years.
(b) That amendment in the Rule 56 of Rajasthan Service rules by insertion of proviso notification dated 31.03.2016 may kindly be quashed so far as it relates to extension of age of MBBS degree holder Medical Officers and the words “MBBS Degree holder” may be deleted being violative of 14 & 16 of the constitution of India.
(c) Alternatively, the respondent State Government may be directed to further insert fresh proviso to Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules 1951 regarding the medical officers holding BDS/MDS Degree, in consonance with the proviso of Rule 56 by which the age of superannuation in respect of MBBS degree holder Medical Officers of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) has been increased to 62 years.
(d) That the order no.2/2023 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the service upto the age of 62 years.
(e) The costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(f) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is holding qualification of Bachelor of Dental Surgeon (BDS) and was initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer (Dental) through recruitment process of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and was thereafter promoted to the post of Principal Specialist in CHC, Merta City. (3 of 10)
2.1. Subsequently, the State Government vide notification dated 31.03.2016 an amendment was made in Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in short, ‘Rules of 1951’) by the Rajasthan Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016.
2.2. Thereafter in pursuance of the notification dated 30.03.2018, an order dated 31.03.2018 came to be passed by the State Government enhancing the age of MBBS degree holder superannuation of Medical Teachers of Rajasthan Medical Service from 62 years to
65 years.
2.3. Subsequently, the respondent department issued order no. 2/2023 on its official website for retirement of medical officers/senior medical officers/junior specialists and other higher posts wherein the persons mentioned in the list were to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years, however name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial no. 35 and as per the given date of retirement, the petitioner was to retire at the age of 60 years.
2.4. In consequence of the notification dated 31.03.2016, the age of superannuation was increased from 60 years to 62 years for MBBS degree holder officer. In further, a representation was also submitted by the petitio
The amendment to Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, allowing different retirement ages for MBBS and BDS degree holders, was found discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of discriminatory treatment based on qualifications, as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Discrimination in the enhancement of the age of superannuation based on the type of medical degree held is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The court ruled that discrimination in retirement age among doctors performing similar functions violates equal protection principles, entitling Unani doctors to the same retirement age as Allopathic....
Amendments to age of superannuation regulations for doctors uphold administrative authority; no vested rights to administrative posts post-62 years established, ensuring compliance with constitutiona....
The age of superannuation enhancement is only applicable to roles involved in patient treatment, and is not discriminatory to deny it for research-related positions.
The court ruled that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as Allopathic Doctors, affirming that discrimination based on classification is unconstitutional.
Reasonable classification under Article 14 allows differentiation in retirement age based on distinct roles and qualifications between medical and non-medical teaching cadres.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.