JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. R. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The facts learned to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner joined as Medical Officer on 20.9.2002 and he has served as Medical Officer for more than 6 years including 3 years mandatory service in ruled areas. The respondent No. 3, Dr. Todak Taba, joined as Medical Officer on 12.07.2004 and he has completed only about 4 years and 5 months of service. By letter dated 11.11.2008, the respondent No. 4, Director of Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS, in short), Imphal, requested the Commissioner (Health) to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to sponsor in-service candidates for admission in post-graduate course (MD/MS/Diploma) at RIMS for the academic session 2009. It was informed that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has been allotted 7 seats, in total, one each in the subjects of Anatomy, Forensic Medical Obs. and Gynaecology, Otorhinolaryngology, Pathology, Pediatrics and T.B. and R.D. The Government of Arunachal pradesh circulated the said information through FAX message to different districts of the State. In response, 6 in-service candidates (Medical Officers) applied for nomination. The Government constituted a Selection Board for nomination of Medical Officers, who on being nominated would be allowed to appear in the Entrance Examination for admission in the aforesaid courses. The Board held its meeting on 5.1.2009 and found the petitioner, alongwith other 3 candidates eligible. The Board found respondent No. 3 ineligible for the course as he has not completed the minimum service period of 5 years and the mandatory period of 3 years in the rural posting. Dr. Phinya, M.O., is a physically handicapped person. He was found ineligible as he did not complete the minimum mandatory rural posting of 3 years. However, his case was cleared on the recommendation of the Minister (H and FW). There was no such clearance in respect of respondent No. 3, yet, he was also nominated alongwith 5 others for appearing in the Entrance Examination for the aforesaid post-graduate courses. However, his case was cleared on the recommendation of the Minister (H and FW). There was no such clearance in respect of respondent No. 3, yet, he was also nominated alongwith 5 others for appearing in the Entrance Examination for the aforesaid post-graduate courses. In the Examination conducted by RIMS, Imphal, out of 6 candidates nominated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, respondent No. 3, stood first among them securing 61 marks and the petitioner stood second securing 51 marks. The respondent No. 3 being placed at the top of the merit list, was allowed to take admission in Obs. & Gynaecology subject whereas the petitioner was allowed to take admission in TB & RD although he opted for Obs. & Gynaecology subject. 3. Mr. T. Son, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No. 3 having found ineligible by the Board for not fulfilling the eligibility conditions viz. 5 years of service and 3 years of rural posting, ought not have been nominated/sponsored by the State Government for in-service postgraduate courses at RIMS. The nomination of private respondent No. 3 is in gross violation of the guidelines issued by the State Government in its order No. MEST- 91/199 dated 30.5.1991 and Memorandum under No. MEST-96/3 dated 11.1.1998 and as such, his nomination is liable to be cancelled. The respondent No. 3 should not have been allowed to pursue the aforesaid course at the cost of the State Exchequer and if he at all wants to undergo the said course, he may be allowed to do so at his own cost. 4. Mr. R. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, submits that though service of respondent No. 3 falls short by 7 months for completion of 5 years, he has completed the mandatory 3 years rural posting and as such, the said respondent is quite eligible for being nominated for undergoing the aforesaid course. The learned Counsel has also relied on a communication dated 15.12.2008 issued by the DMO, Papum Pare District, Yupia, wherein details of his rural posting of 3 years have been shown. The learned Counsel has also relied on a communication dated 15.12.2008 issued by the DMO, Papum Pare District, Yupia, wherein details of his rural posting of 3 years have been shown. According to this communication, the respondent No. 3 served at Palin CHC for a period of 1 year and 4 months, at Karsingsha Sub-Centre under CMO, Naharlagun, for a period of 1 year and 5 months, at Bath Sub-Centre under Papum Pare DMO for a period 4 months, at Tarasso PHC for a period of 1 year and 4 months, which comes to a total of 4 years and 5 months. According to the learned Counsel, considering the aforesaid service period rendered by respondent No. 3, he was nominated/sponsored by the State Government for admission in the aforesaid Course. The learned Counsel also contended that since the private respondent No. 3 stood first in the Entrance Exam so he was allotted the Subject Obs. Gynaecology by the RIMS authority. According to Mr. Saikia, the State respondent authorities have rightly sponsored the respondent No. 3 and his nomination is not liable to be cancelled at this stage as he has already taken admission and is pursuing the course for last about 3 months. 5. Based on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents 1 and 2, Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, submits that since there was shortage of one applicant against 7 (seven) allotted seats, the State Government, in the interest of public service, decided to sponsor all the available candidates for undergoing the courses offered by the RIMS, Imphal. Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, has produced the relevant records. It has been submitted by her that the State Selection Board found respondent No. 3 ineligible as he has not completed minimum 5 years of service and minimum 3 years of mandatory rural posting but he was nominated with the approval of the Minister (H & FW), Arunachal Pradesh. 6. Senior Government Advocate, has produced the relevant records. It has been submitted by her that the State Selection Board found respondent No. 3 ineligible as he has not completed minimum 5 years of service and minimum 3 years of mandatory rural posting but he was nominated with the approval of the Minister (H & FW), Arunachal Pradesh. 6. The main question posed before this Court, as could be understood from the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, is whether respondent No. 3 fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in the guidelines issued by the State Government in its order dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in regard to total service period of 5 years and order dated 11.9.1998 (Annexure-5[1] to the writ petition) in regard to mandatory 3 years of rural posting. The office order dated 30.5.1991 is not under challenge and it has been accepted by the concerned parties. The Selection Board while considering the respective eligibility condition of the candidates found respondent No. 3 not eligible for seeking admission to the post graduate course, inasmuch as he has not completed minimum 5 years of service as he joined the State service only on 12.7.2004. The Board's recommendation for nomination of Medical Officers for undergoing the aforementioned course has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which was signed by the Chairman and other members of the Board on 5.1.2009. It is therefore an admitted position that respondent No. 3 did not complete the minimum 5 years total service and he is, therefore, not eligible for being nominated for pursuing the aforesaid course at RIMS, Imphal. 7. As regards the minimum 3 years mandatory rural posting, the Board found that respondent No. 3 served 4 years and 5 months in the rural posting. This aspect has been seriously disputed by the petitioner. It has been submitted by Mr. Son, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the certificate dated 15,12.2008 (Annexure-I series to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 3) cannot be relied upon as a proof of completing 3 years rural posting by private respondent No. 3. According to him, Karsingsha Sub-Centre under CMO, Naharlagun, where the respondent No. 3 claimed to have served for 1 year and 5 months is located within the periphery of Naharlagun Township and it does not fall under the hard/rural posting. According to him, Karsingsha Sub-Centre under CMO, Naharlagun, where the respondent No. 3 claimed to have served for 1 year and 5 months is located within the periphery of Naharlagun Township and it does not fall under the hard/rural posting. Similarly, the posting of respondent No. 3 at Bath Sub-Centre under DMO Papum Pare, where he claimed to have served for 4 months also does not fall under the hard/rural posting. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the posting under Palin CHC and Tarasso PHC could be treated as rural postings. If the averments made by the petitioner are treated to be correct, the respondent No. 3 has served only 2 years and 8 months in rural areas. Moreover, it is submitted by Mr. Son, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the DMO, Papum Pare District, Yupia, is not authorized to issues such a certificate containing wrong description of rural posting of a Medical Officer. 8. I have carefully gone through the Board's recommendation for nomination of Medical Officers to appear in Entrance Exam for admission in post-graduate courses as State sponsored candidates during the academic session of 2009 in RIMS, Imphal (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The said Board in its meeting held on 5.1.2009, had clearly recorded that the total length of service rendered by respondent No. 3 in only 4 years and 5 months. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, they have also accepted this position. However, as regards the length of service in rural areas, the said Board recorded that Respondent No. 3 had served 4 years and 5 months. This Court is to find out whether the Board correctly recorded the same on the basis of materials placed before it. From the records, it is found that the Government vide O.M. No. MEST-2000/44 dated 27.6.2000 declared 25 areas as soft places of posting/urban areas in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. In the said list, Itanagar and Naharlagun have been included in the list of soft places of posting/urban areas. It is stated at the Bar that the place Karsingsha is within the periphery of Naharlagun Township and as such, Karsingsha Sub-centre falls under the administrative jurisdiction of Chief Medical Officer, and Bath Sub-centre under DMO Papum Pare also comes within the territory of Capital Complex of the State. It is stated at the Bar that the place Karsingsha is within the periphery of Naharlagun Township and as such, Karsingsha Sub-centre falls under the administrative jurisdiction of Chief Medical Officer, and Bath Sub-centre under DMO Papum Pare also comes within the territory of Capital Complex of the State. This position has been vindicated by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply wherein it has been categorically stated that Karsingshal Sub-centre is within the capital complex and as such, it does not fall under rural posting as stipulated under the aforementioned guidelines. It is further stated that while Respondent No. 3 was posted as a Medical Officer at Tarasso PHC under DMO Papum pare, he was practically and physically attached to General Hospital, Naharlagun. Similarly, it is stated that Bath Sub-Centre also falls within the capital complex. The Respondent No. 3 could not rebut the aforesaid statement as regard to Karsingsha and Bath Health centres and thus, one can come to a conclusion that both these health centres are not rural posting. Thus, it can be concluded that Respondent No. 3 could not fulfill the requirement of total length of 5 years service and mandatory 3 years service in rural arias as Medical Officer and as such, he is not eligible for being sponsored by the State Government for undergoing the aforesaid P.G. Course. The Selection Board in its recommendation clearly made the following observations: 1. Though there are 7 P.G. seats for the State, only 6 M.O. have applied. 2. Out of the 6 M.O., only 4 M.O. are eligible for nomination to P.G. Course as per State Government guidelines. 3. As for Dr. D. Phinya, M.O. at sl. (4), he is handicapped and has been recommended by Hon'ble Minister (H & FW) for consideration. However, he has not completed the mandatory tenure of 3 years rules service. 4. As for Dr. Todak Taba, M.O. at sl. (5), he has not completed the mandatory tenure of 5 years and falls short by 7 months. As such, the Board recommends to nominate the Doctors at sl. (1), (2), (3) and (6) for P.G. Course. And the case of Dr. D Phinya and Dr. Todak Taba may be put up of Government for decision to the effect, keeping in and that there are 7 seats offered to A.P. and we have only six applicants till date. As such, the Board recommends to nominate the Doctors at sl. (1), (2), (3) and (6) for P.G. Course. And the case of Dr. D Phinya and Dr. Todak Taba may be put up of Government for decision to the effect, keeping in and that there are 7 seats offered to A.P. and we have only six applicants till date. In the aforesaid recommendations, observation No. 4 relates to Dr. Todak Tada (Respondent No. 3). As per the said observation, Respondent No. 3 is not eligible for appearing in the RIMS Entrance Examination. However, the cases of Dr. D. Phinya as well as respondent No. 3 were forwarded to the Government for taking appropriate decision. 9. From the departmental file bearing No. MEST 2008/376, it is found that the Minister (H & FW), on 9.1.2009, approved the proposal for sponsoring all the 6 (six) applicants by the State Government as the Nos. of Medical Officers vying for admission were lesser than 7 (seven) allotted seats for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. On the aforesaid approval, serious objection was raised by the other selected medical Officers including the petitioner by way of submitting a written complaint on 4.2 2009 before the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, against sponsoring of an ineligible candidate, namely, Dr. Todak Taba. Since on action was taken by the Director on the aforesaid complaint, they submitted another representation before the Minister (H & FW) on which the Minister concerned directed the Commissioner, Health, to examine the matter and put-up immediately for appropriate decision by the Government. For better appreciation of the reasons as to why the aforementioned selected Medical Officers made objection to the nomination of Respondent No. 3, it would be apt to quote the complaint petition us under: To, The Hon'ble Minister (H & FW), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Sub: Endorsing of the earlier approval of cancellation of candidature of Dr. Todak Taba for sponsoring P.G. Course at RIMS Imphal for the Session 2009. Sir, With due honour, we would like to state that Dr. Sub: Endorsing of the earlier approval of cancellation of candidature of Dr. Todak Taba for sponsoring P.G. Course at RIMS Imphal for the Session 2009. Sir, With due honour, we would like to state that Dr. Todak Tara has been selected for appearing the P.G. Entrance Exam for the Session of 2009 as sponsored candidate whereas he does not fulfill the laid criteria of total length of service of 5 years and manipulated the length of rural service of 4 years and 5 months in front of the Selection Board which is not in the fact as per DMOs forwarding letter. And accordingly, the complain was lodged to the DHS on 4th February, 2009, and the Dy. DHS, Establishment Branch, has examined the matter in length and put up for cancellation of the said candidate which is reflected in the note sheet page No. 6/N of file No. MEST-2008/376 which was approved by the Commissioner. The cancellation was communicated to Dr. Todak Tara personally at the Office Chamber of Dy. DHS on 6th February, 2009, by Dy. DHS, Est., DHS. However, the copy of cancellation order was not communicated intentionally to RIMS authority and allowed the candidate to appear the Exam at the last moment in front of DHS of AP. And the candidate has qualified the Exam and opted the good seat which was meant for already eligible candidate thereby curtailing the rights of the genuine eligible candidates. The complain was also lodged to the Director RIMS for that matter. Therefore, we the genuine and eligible candidates would like to request your honour to intervene the matter at the earliest possible in order to protect the integrity and transparency of the system and in the interest of the justice for the eligible candidate and to avoid setting a bad example for the Doctor's Community as a whole, under your kind consideration and sympathetic action. Yours sincerely, Enclosed: 1. Government criteria for selection Dr. J. Ori, Sd/- 2. Government Memorandum for not Dr. J. Zongluju, Sd/- recommended ineligible candidate Dr. D. Phinya, Sd/- 3. note sheet of approval of file Dr. T.J. Tara, Sd/- 4. Board recommendation Dr. Yours sincerely, Enclosed: 1. Government criteria for selection Dr. J. Ori, Sd/- 2. Government Memorandum for not Dr. J. Zongluju, Sd/- recommended ineligible candidate Dr. D. Phinya, Sd/- 3. note sheet of approval of file Dr. T.J. Tara, Sd/- 4. Board recommendation Dr. P. Sona, Sd/- In this regard, the Government failed to take any decision on the aforesaid complaint and kept the matter pending on the ground that some parties have approached this Court and the State Government decided to wait for the decision of this Court. 10. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is found that the State Government did not take any decision on relaxing the eligibility criteria in respect of Respondent No. 3's total length of service and minimum length of service in rural areas as Medical Officer while approving the proposal for sponsoring Respondent No. 3's candidature against the State quota for pursuing the P.G. Course at RIMS, Imphal. Without such relaxation, no ineligible candidate could be sponsored by the Government and because of such wrongful sponsorship, Respondent No. 3 got the chance to appear in the Entrance exam while keeping the RIMS authorities in darkness. Had the said fact been made known to the RIMS authorities, it would not have allowed Respondent No. 3 to appear in the Entrance exam. It is also found that the petitioner secured 51 marks in the Entrance Exam and he had stood second in the merit list and as such, he would have got the chance to opt for his preferred subject Obs. & Gynaecology. 11. The action of the State respondent authorities in sponsoring ineligible candidate like the present private Respondent No. 3 is not backed by any law or supporting rules, rather, it has been done in utter violation of the existing guidelines/memorandum/eligibility criteria laid down by the State Government from time to time and as such, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference with the decision and action taken by the State respondent authorities in sponsoring Respondent No. 3, an ineligible candidate. It is already established that Respondent No. 3 is not eligible due to shortage in his total length of service as well as in minimum length of service in rural postings and as such, his nomination/sponsorship is liable to be cancelled. It is already established that Respondent No. 3 is not eligible due to shortage in his total length of service as well as in minimum length of service in rural postings and as such, his nomination/sponsorship is liable to be cancelled. It is, therefore, directed that the State respondent authorities shall pass necessary order cancelling nomination/sponsorship of Respondent No. 3 with immediate effect preferable not later than a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the respondent authorities shall also duly intimate such order to the RIMS at Imphal without delay. 12. The respondent RIMS, Imphal, shall also consider the claim of the present writ petitioner, as made out in the instant petition, for pursuing RG. Course in Obs. & Gynaecology subject as a State sponsored candidate of Arunachal Pradesh during the current academic session of 2009 in place of Respondent No. 3 (Dr. Todak Taba). It is however provided that Respondent No. 3 may continue and complete his course as an open category candidate at his own cost if the RIMS authorities allow him to do so and if permissible under the existing provisions of RIMS, Imphal. 13. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.