Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 662 (MP)

Surendra Singh Patel v. State of M. P.

2009-05-15

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
ORDER Misra, J. -- 1. The petitioners, who were medical graduates, have been appointed on contract basis under RCH Scheme and continuing since from the date of appointment. It is contended that Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (for short 'the Board') has the responsibility to conduct entrance examination for the Post Graduates. The State Government has framed a set of rules called Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 (for short 'the Rules'). It is put forth that the aforesaid Scheme is run by Public Health and Family Welfare Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is put forth that 85% of the budget is allocated by the Central Government and the State Government has to expend 15% for the said Scheme. 2. According to the writ petitioners, they are In-service candidates as Per the definition in the rules and they had appeared in the entrance examination for Post Graduate course conducted by the Board but the department did not issue sponsor certificate to them as In-service candidates as per the order dated 27.4.2009. It is contended that they come within the ambit and sweep of definition clause and there was no warrant not to extend the benefit. In this factual backdrop, a prayer has been made to command the respondent No.1 to treat them as In-service candidates and to direct the respondent No.2 to call the petitioners for counseling. 3. When this matter was listed, this Court required Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. We have heard Mr. Ahlluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the State. 5. The singular question that emanate for consideration whether the petitioners can be treated as In-service candidates. Submission of Mr. Ahlluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have been appointed on contract basis pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State Government and their letters of appointment would clearly show they are the contract appointees. In essence, stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are In-service candidates but unfortunately, the respondents on an erroneous appreciation of rules have not extended the benefit to them. 6. Resisting the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Ahlluwalia, Mr. Pathak and Mr. In essence, stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are In-service candidates but unfortunately, the respondents on an erroneous appreciation of rules have not extended the benefit to them. 6. Resisting the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Ahlluwalia, Mr. Pathak and Mr. Awasthy have contended that the definition clause does not encompass likes of the petitioners and by no stretch of imagination, they can be regarded as In-service candidates. It is propounded by them that the petitioners are appointed under the Scheme and the said Scheme is funded by the Central Government and the rules which are applicable for appointment of contract Doctors are not applicable to them. It is urged by them that the petitioners cannot be treated as Medical officers of the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. 7. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the bar, it is appropriate to refer to the definition clause as contained in Rule 2 (d) which defines the term 'In-service Candidate'. It reads as under: "(d) "In-service Candidate" means, Medical officer of Public Health and Family Welfare Department who is serving under the Government of Madhya Pradesh on regular or contract basis." Mr. Ahlluwalia has invited our attention to the advertisement which has been filed along with an application for taking documents on record. On a perusal of the same, it is perceptible that the advertisement has been issued by the Secretary, State RCH Committee. The language employed in the advertisement states that the advertisement for appointment of contract officers are the Gramin Swasthya Kendra Medical Centers in the Village. The advertisement clearly stipulates that no benefit of a State Government employee under any circumstances shall be extended to them. 8. In view of the aforesaid advertisement and the authority who had issued the same and regard being had to the postulate therein, we have no shadow of doubt that petitioners cannot be treated as In-service candidates as they are not in service under Public Health and Family Welfare Department as Medical officers. There is no room for any doubt that they do not fit into the compartment of In-service candidates. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we perceive no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.