Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1372 (RAJ)

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-09

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-In the present petition the petitioners raised a question relating to inclusion of "ad hoc/Contract candidates" into the category of "In Service" in the Pre-PG Medical Examination, 2005 results. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Asopa submits that "In Service " candidates are Doctors who have qualified in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and "In service" candidates does not include "ad hoc/Contract candidates". The ad hoc/Contract candidates are those candidates who have either failed to clear the RPSC or did not even attempt the same. They are employed on fixed amount of Rs. 8,000/ - per month. 3. Mr. Asopa referred Ordinance 278-E of University of Rajasthan, which contemplates the total number of seats for various Post Graduate courses for MD and MS and also stipulates the total number of reservations for the seats. It also stipulates that any candidate selected by the RPSC will be eligible for reservation under the category of In Service. 4. First time in the year 2002 the University of Rajasthan in pursuance of the Executive directions issued by the State Government of Rajasthan, issued a Corrigendum notifying that ad hoc/temporary candidates who had worked in rural areas continuously for a period of 3 years will be eligible to apply under the "In Service" category. 5. Thereafter, the University of Rajasthan in its prospectus for the year 2004 specifically incorporated the provision for inclusion of ad hoc/temporary and contractual candidates in the In Service category. 6. This inclusion was challenged before this Court wherein a Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the petition was filed after the petitioners had participated in the selection process. Present petition pertains to the pre P.G. Entrance Examination conducted in 2005 for the academic year 2005-2006. The prospectus for the year 2005 was released in January, 2005. 7. As per the prospectus eligibility for In-service category the criteria was laid down that the candidates should be In-service of State Government of Rajasthan, below the age of 45 years and should have completed at least 3 years of service in rural areas of the State of Rajasthan or two years of continuous service of rural areas of desert/hilly or tribal parts of the State. 8. By referring the prospectus Mr. 8. By referring the prospectus Mr. Asopa demonstrated before this Court that the prospectus only indicates in service, which do not include the Ad hoc/temporary/ Contract candidates. But the result was declared on 14.02.2005, which includes adhoc/contract/temporary candidates. 9. Aggrieving and dissatisfied with the merit list, which includes candidates from the adhoc/contract/temporary in ”in service" list, the petitioners preferred this present petition. 10. Mr. Asopa also referred definition of "in service" and the Ordinances 278-E and 278-G and submitted that "in service" candidates comprises of candidates selected through an open competitive exam conduced by the RPSC. The petitioners prayed that the respondents be restrained from calling adhoc/temporary/contract or daily wages employees for counseling in Pre PG Admission. 11. Mr. Rafiq, who is appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners wrongly interpreted the category of in service and the nature of appointment whether on regular basis or on adhoc/temporary or even on contract basis does not in any manner make any distinction in so far as the experience acquired by the candidates while actually working in the rural areas is concerned. The distinction sought to be made by the petitioners is hypothetical and unreal. Even the appointment on adhoc/urgent temporary basis are made by recourse to the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 and when such candidates are continued in the nature of adhoc/urgent temporary appointment continuously for a period of three years, they are eligible to appear in the examination. 10.12. He further submits that to be eligible under In-service category, the candidates should be In-Service of State Government of Rajasthan, below the age 45 years and should have completed at least three years of service in rural areas of the State of Rajasthan or two years of continuous service of rural areas of Desert/Hilly or Tribal parts of the State. 113. By reading the eligibility criteria it appears that there is no distinction in so far as the nature of employment is concerned whether a Medical Officer is regularly selected from RPSC or is working on adhoc/temporary/contractual basis, he should be in service of State Government of Rajasthan. 14. Mr. Rafiq also referred the instructions, which are issued by the State Government to the University of Rajasthan and it is not disputed that the amendment in the University Ordinance has not yet been affected. 15. 14. Mr. Rafiq also referred the instructions, which are issued by the State Government to the University of Rajasthan and it is not disputed that the amendment in the University Ordinance has not yet been affected. 15. He also referred the orders dated 212.2004, 01.01.2005 and 03.01.2005 annexed with the reply. 16. Learned Counsel for both the parties placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Mukesh Garg & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors., decided on 16th June, 2004. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the Judgment wherein this Court has held "It is not disputed that the State Government cannot issue any instruction contrary to regulations. The administrative instructions can supplement the rules and regulations but cannot completely supplant or alter as held by the Supreme Court in the case reported in, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1910 (Sant Ram vs. State of Rajasthan)." 18. It is admitted by learned Counsel for the respondents and learned Counsel appearing for the University that the University has yet not amended the Ordinance in view of the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid Judgment . The Court has specifically directed that the appropriate amendment should be made by the University well in time so that in future the medical officers should not suffer and should not indulge in the litigations since the State itself is not firm in their decision and every year they are changing the instructions by way of changing criteria of eligibility. This leads to uncertainty. The State Government is expected to undertake the exercise and laid down the criteria and in accordance with the criteria, the University be directed to amend the Ordinance accordingly but in any case for the present controversy as the State is empowered to issue instructions and these instructions are issued from time to time, I find the instructions are not contrary to the provisions of 278. 19. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in view of the direction issued by this Court they have suggested the amendment. It was decided that the University be directed to make the amendment in Ordinances 278-E and 278-G by suggesting the amendment so requires to be made. 20. It is not disputed that the University has still not acted upon the instructions issued by the State. It was decided that the University be directed to make the amendment in Ordinances 278-E and 278-G by suggesting the amendment so requires to be made. 20. It is not disputed that the University has still not acted upon the instructions issued by the State. Therefore, again reiterating the observations made in the earlier Judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Mukesh Garg (Supra), I further deprecate the practice of the State as well as the University not to incorporate amendment to remove all doubts. 21. Therefore, it is expected from the State as well as the University of Rajasthan to incorporate the amendment suggested by the State forthwith but in any case not later than one month from the date of passing of this order. 22. Since, the intention of the State is clear that in service category includes. Adhoc/temporary/contract medical officers, therefore, they are rightly included in "in service" category and the results are rightly declared including the aforesaid categories. 23. In view of the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .