The judgment emphasizes the significance of possessing the minimum educational qualification for appointment on a government post and upholds the binding nature of Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare and other Officers of the said Department and the Superintendent of Patliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad (in short, the State of Jharkhand) have come together to challenge the order dated 27th September 2021 passed in WP(S) No. 1180 of 2019.

2. By the office order dated 28th February 2019, the respondent was relieved from the Department of Radiology at Patliputra Medical College and Hospital with a direction to handover the charge to the Head of the Department after obtaining a no dues certificate and tender his joining at the headquarters. This office order has been quashed by the writ Court by the aforesaid order dated 27th September 2021.

3. Briefly stated, pursuant to an advertisement issued on 7th October 1994 for appointment of the Resident Medical Officers in different Medical Colleges in the erstwhile State of Bihar the respondent was appointed as Resident Doctor on a tenure post. Before that, the respondent was working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Siswan since 11th March 1988. Later on, the Bihar Medical Education Service Admission to Cadre and Cadre Posts Rules, 1997 (in short, Bihar Education Service Cadre Rules) were framed whereunder the Resident Doctors and Registrars were to be made the Lecturers. In terms of Clause 5 (kha) thereof, the Resident Doctors and Registrars working in different Medical Colleges were provided the option to opt for the Bihar Medical Education Service Cadre or to remain in their parent cadre/original cadre. The case pleaded by the respondent herein before the writ Court was that he was appointed as Resident Doctor on 21st May 1997 in the Department of Radiology and since then he had been working on the post of Lecturer. However, by the office order dated 20th February 2019 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare a general direction was issued that all Senior Residents Doctors who worked for more than three years shall be relieved and, in compliance of the said office order, the respondent was relieved by the office order dated 28th February 2019 and directed to tender joining at the Headquarters.

4. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the respondent challenged the office order dated 28th February 2019 inter-alia on the grounds that (i) by virtue of Clause 5(kha) of Bihar Education Service Cadre Rules he stood absorbed on the post of Lecturer and (ii) the state authorities having accepted his eligibility and applicability of Clause 5(kha) issued Notification dated 1st September 2015 as amended by the Notification dated 20th May 2016 treating him as a Lecturer. The State of Jharkhand opposed the writ petition by raising a specific plea as regards eligibility of the respondent to hold the post of Lecturer.

5. The writ Court took note of the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court in WP(S) No. 595 of 2002 and the judgment in “N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others” (1990) 3 SCC 157 and came to a conclusion that the stipulation circulated vide letter dated 20th February 2019 are not applicable to the respondent as he was no more a Senior Resident and, therefore, quashed letter no. 420 dated 28th February 2019.

6. In the order dated 27th September 2021 passed in WP(S) No. 1180 of 2019, the writ Court held as under:

“13. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it appears that a specific plea has been taken that since petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualification i.e. Post Graduate Degree in the relevant field and also failed to enhance his qualification during his service tenure, he cannot be treated as Lecturer. The entire arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-State is based on the aforesaid premise, which are not acceptable to this Court on the ground that 2018 Rules is not applicable in the case of the p