Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 777 (MP)

ABHISHEK PARMAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-11-08

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri D. P. Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R. K. Soni, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1/State. Shri Sankalp Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs : – “i) That, impugned advertisement contained in Annexure – P/1 may kindly be held to be illegal and the respondents may kindly be directed to modify the same to the extent to allowing the candidates/persons who are having B. Pharma qualification, which is a degree course, in the interest of justice. ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner.” 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having the qualification of B.Pharma from a recognized University and on the basis of said qualification, he was appointed in the Department of Health and Pharmacy. From the date of his appointment, i.e. January, 2016, he is working in the Department of Health and Pharmacy. National Health Policy, 2017 has been formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India and Clause 11.4 thereof provides for Mid-Level Service Providers, wherein qualification of Pharmacists has been considered. Thus, it is claimed that the persons who are having degree course of B.Pharma deserves for consideration at par with the other candidates. However, the respondent No. 2 has issued an advertisement for Health and Wellness Programme Certificate in Community Health and only the candidates having the qualification of B.Sc. Nursing, Post Basic B.Sc. or G.N.M. or B.A.M.S. have been invited, whereas the other candidates have not been invited. Thus, it is prayed that since the petitioner is also having the qualification of B.Pharma, which is equivalent to the qualification mentioned in the impugned advertisement, therefore, the petitioner also deserves to be considered for training in question, but the respondent No. 2 while issuing advertisement has debarred the candidates who are having B.Pharma qualification. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Clause 11.4 of the National Health Policy, 2017 reads as under : – “11.4 Mid-Level Service Providers : For expansion of primary care from selective care to comprehensive care, complementary human resource strategy is the development of a cadre of mid-level care providers. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Clause 11.4 of the National Health Policy, 2017 reads as under : – “11.4 Mid-Level Service Providers : For expansion of primary care from selective care to comprehensive care, complementary human resource strategy is the development of a cadre of mid-level care providers. This can be done through appropriate courses like a B.Sc. in community health and/or through competency-based bridge courses and short courses. These bridge courses could admit graduates from different clinical and paramedical backgrounds like AYUSH doctors, B.Sc. Nurses, Pharmacists, GNMs, etc and equip them with skills to provide services at the sub-centre and other peripheral levels. Locale based selection, a special curriculum of training close to the place where they live and work, conditional licensing, enabling legal framework and a positive practice environment will ensure that this new cadre is preferentially available where they are needed most, i.e. in the under-served areas.” 6. It is clear from this clause that bridge courses could admit graduates from different clinical and paramedical backgrounds like AYUSH doctors, B.Sc. Nurses, Pharmacists, GNMs etc. and equip them with skills to provide services at the sub-centre and other peripheral levels. Similarly, Clause 4.49.9 of the 109th report of National Medical Commission Bill, 2017 provides for certain recommendations which reads as under : – “4.49.9 The Committee is of the view that the Bridge Course should not be made a mandatory provision in the present Bill. However, the Committee appreciates the need to build the capacity of the existing human resources in the healthcare sector, to address the shortage of healthcare professionals so as to achieve the objectives of the National Health Policy, 2017. The Committee feels that every State has its own specific healthcare issues and challenges. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the State Governments may implement measures to enhance the capacity of the existing healthcare professionals including AYUSH practitioners, B.Sc (Nursing), BDS, B.Pharma. etc. to address their State specific primary healthcare issues in the rural areas. The Committee also recommends that adequate budgetary resources may also be provided to meet the said objective.” 7. From the plain reading of Clause 11.4 of National Health Policy, 2017 and 4.49.9 of the recommendation of the Committee, it is clear that the National Health Mission may admit Pharmacists for bridge courses. The Committee also recommends that adequate budgetary resources may also be provided to meet the said objective.” 7. From the plain reading of Clause 11.4 of National Health Policy, 2017 and 4.49.9 of the recommendation of the Committee, it is clear that the National Health Mission may admit Pharmacists for bridge courses. Neither in the National Health Policy, 2017 nor in the recommendations of the Committee, it is mentioned that it would be compulsory on the part of the National Health Mission to invite Pharmacists also, to undergo the bridge courses. Unless and until the petitioner points out that the fundamental right has been violated or the advertisement issued by the respondents is contrary to the Policy or Act or Rule, this Court cannot interfere with the advertisement issued by the respondents. It is for the respondents to take a decision in this regard. If the National Health Mission has decided not to include the Pharmacists, then it cannot be said that the advertisement issued by the National Health Mission is contrary to the policy. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Das and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., reported in 1956 SC 520 has held as under : – “4. ….In our opinion, it is open to the appointing authority to lay down the requisite qualifications for recruitment to Government service and it is open to that authority to lay down such prerequisite conditions of appointment as would be conducive to the maintenance of proper discipline amongst Government servants.....” 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. 10. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.