Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 169 (CHH)

Geeta Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-04-22

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, YATINDRA SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. The main point involved in these two writ petitions is, 'Whether the word ^fu;fer^ (regular) in sub-rule (1) of rule 4 {4(1)} of the Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Swasthya Karyakarta (ANM) Pathyakram Pravesh Niyam, 2011 (the Rules), is discriminatory.' THE FACTS 2. The State Government conducts 1½ year Auxilliary Nursing and Midwifery course (the ANM-Course) for the appointment on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker, which includes ANM. The admission in the ANM-Course is governed by the Rules. 3. Rule 4(1) of the Rules provides minimum educational qualification for admission. It is as follows: (4) efgyk cgqmís’kh; LokLF; dk;ZdrkZ ¼,-,u-e-½ izf’k{k.k ikB;Øe es izos’k gsrq U;wure ‘kS{kf.kd vgrkZ;sa % 1- 10$2 f’k{kk i}fr es fu;fer ijh{kk 12oh d{kk mRrh.kZ vFkok iqjkuh i}fr es gkb;j lSdsaMjh ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA WP 7934 of 2011 4. The Respondent published an advertisement for admission in the ANM-Course in the month of October, 2011 for the session 2011-2012. 5. Smt. Geeta Singh filed an application for admission in the ANM-Course. Her application was not entertained on the ground that she had passed 12th class privately and not as a regular student. She has filed Writ Petition (C)-7934 of 2011 challenging the validity of rule 4(1) of the Rules. WP 176 of 2013 6. The Respondent again published an advertisement for admission in the ANM-Course in the month of July, 2013 for the session 2013-14. 7. Ku. Preeti Sahu, Smt. Nandani, Ku. Navina Nag, Ku. Lalita Brij and Ku. Oyam Hadme were given admission in the 2013-14 session, however, their admission was cancelled in the mid-term by orders dated 11.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 on the ground that they had passed 12th class examination privately and as a regular student. They have filed the Writ Petition (C) No. 176 of 2013, challenging the validity of the Rules and the orders cancelling their admission. THE DECISION 8. We have heard counsel for the parties. The counsel for the Petitioners submit that: The Petitioners have passed their 12th class examination from the Chhattisgarh State Open School, Raipur (the Board); The Board is department/ society of the Chhattisgarh Government and the examinations conducted by it are recognised by the State Government; There is no difference between a regular candidate and a candidate who has passed class 12th from the Board; Rule 4(1) of the Rules discriminates against the students who have passed 12th class examination privately and is discriminatory. 9. The Rule 4(1) of the Rules classifies the candidates into two classes: the candidates who passed examination in a regular course and those who have done it privately. It permits the regular pass candidates to be considered for the ANM-Course, but disqualifies the candidates who have passed the examination privately. The question is, is this classification invalid. 10. The courts have laid down two tests that must be satisfied before a classification may be held to be reasonable. They are as follows: (i) The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of this group; and (ii) The differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved. Budhan v. State of Bihar (1995) 1 SCR 1045: AIR 1955 SC 191 ; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali 1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75 ; Vajravelu v. Sp. Dy. Collector, AIR 1965 SC 10917: (1965) 1 SCR 614 ; Shujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631 : (1975) 3 SCC 76 ; Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 : 1959 SCR 629, What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the provisions under consideration, Budhan v. State of Bihar (1995) 1 SCR 1045: AIR 1955 SC 191 ; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali 1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75 ; Vajravelu v. Sp. Dy. Collector, AIR 1965 SC 10917: (1965) 1 SCR 614 ; Shujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631 : (1975) 3 SCC 76 . 11. The Board is managed by the officers of the State. It is a government body. The examination conducted by it, is equivalent to the 12th class examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh State Board of Secondary Education in the regular course. It is recognised for admission in the Universities as well as for appearing in any other competitive examinations held by the State or for pre-medical test (PMT). 12. Initially, the minimum qualification for the ANM course was class 10th pass. Subsequently, the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi (the Council) passed a resolution in the year 2012 recommending that the minimum eligibility criteria for the ANM course should be class 12th pass. 12. Initially, the minimum qualification for the ANM course was class 10th pass. Subsequently, the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi (the Council) passed a resolution in the year 2012 recommending that the minimum eligibility criteria for the ANM course should be class 12th pass. The resolution No. 15 (a) is as follows: 'Eligibility criteria for 2012-13 a. Minimum eligibility criteria for ANM course shall be 12th pass instead of 10th pass training shall be 2 years duration from 2012-13 academic year.' 13. It is on the basis of the aforesaid resolution that the minimum qualification was increased from 10th class pass to 12th class pass. However, this resolution does not stipulate that the candidates should have passed 12th class from regular course. It does not discriminate between the students, who have passed 12th class privately and the students who have passed as the regular students. 14. The purpose of the course is to train the candidates for Multipurpose Health Worker. They normally help in the rural areas. The classification between private students and regular students has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There is no difference between a student who has passed class 12th privately and the students who have passed class 12th as a regular student. 15. In our opinion, the word ^fu;fer^ under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, discriminates between the two classes and is declared void. 16. The application of the petitioner in WP 7934 of 2011 for admission to the ANM-Course was not illegally entertained on the ground that she has not passed class 12th as a regular student. However, that session is over. 17. In view of above, in the next advertisement for admission to the ANM-Course by the State Government, she will be considered for admission on merit and her application will not be rejected on the ground that she ha ds crossed the age limit or she had passed her class 12th privately. 18. The petitioners in WP 176 of 2014 were given admission to the ANM-Course for the session 2013-14. However, their admission was cancelled in the mid-term by orders dated 11.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 on the ground that they had not passed class 12th examination as a regular student. We have held the word ^fu;fer^ to be discriminatory and void. In view of the same, the orders dated 11.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 are also set aside. 19. However, their admission was cancelled in the mid-term by orders dated 11.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 on the ground that they had not passed class 12th examination as a regular student. We have held the word ^fu;fer^ to be discriminatory and void. In view of the same, the orders dated 11.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 are also set aside. 19. The Petitioners in WP 176 of 2014 shall be permitted to complete their course and in case they have missed any part of the training, the State Government will ensure that the training of that part is also given to them. CONCLUSION 20. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The word ^fu;fer^ in rule 4(1) of the Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Swasthya Karyakarta (ANM) Pathyakram Pravesh Niyam, 2011 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (b) The Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 7934 of 2011 will be permitted to apply for admission in the ANM-Course in the next session and her application will be considered on merits. It will not be rejected on the ground of age bar or she has passed her 12th class privately; (c) In Writ Petition (C) No. 176 of 2014, the orders dated 11.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 are quashed. The petitioners in this WP will be taken back in the ANM-Course and permitted to complete the same. In case, they have missed any part of the training, the State Government will ensure that this is imparted to them. 21. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are allowed.