Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2493 (RAJ)

Hariom Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-21

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter proforma dated 17.06.2022 issued by the respondent- Principal Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kekri, District Ajmer counting only one year of rural service of the petitioner and the petitioner further seeks direction to consider the rural service rendered by him for more than three years and providing him incentive marks upto 30%, considering his service in rural area for more than three years. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Rural Medical Officer vide order dated 19.09.2008 under the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Services Rules, 2008 (hereafter 'the Rules of 2008'). The petitioner came to be posted at Community Health Centre, Kekri by order of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kekri, dated 03.10.2008. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had joined as per directions of the Chief Medical and Health Officer at Community Health Center, Kekri and he continued to work there upto 30.09.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from CHC, Kekri to Dungarpur. The petitioner continued upto 11.12.2019 at Dungarpur and thereafter, he joined his services at CHC, Tanoti, District Ajmer and continued there in service from 12.12.2019 upto 01.03.2021 i.e. for 445 days. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondents have counted rural service of petitioner for the purpose of grant of incentive marks only for the duration, when the petitioner was posted at CHC, Tanoti from 12.12.2019 to 01.03.2021 and the service rendered by the petitioner at CHC, Kekri, as rural service, has not been counted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after appointment of the petitioner under the Rules of 2008, an order was issued by the Director, Medical & Health Services, whereby, 76 posts from Ajmer District were converted from the Medical Officer to Rural Medical Officer and post of Medical Officer at CHC, Kekri, was also converted into the Rural Medical Officer. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner while posted at CHC, Kekri was paid rural allowances. Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 2008 had given definition of 'Rural' and as per the definition given in Rule 2(j) 'Rural' means Community Health Centre and Primary Health Centre, which was located in the area other than District Head Quarter. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner while posted at CHC, Kekri was paid rural allowances. Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 2008 had given definition of 'Rural' and as per the definition given in Rule 2(j) 'Rural' means Community Health Centre and Primary Health Centre, which was located in the area other than District Head Quarter. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 2008 were later on repealed vide notification dated 03.01.2012. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied in 2012 for PG Course as In-service candidate and while filling the application form, the petitioner had specifically mentioned that he has rendered rural services from 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2010 at Community Health Center, Kekri, District Ajmer. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the necessary certificate was also issued by the Competent Authority for the purpose of eligibility of the petitioner to get admission of the Post Graduate Course and service rendered by the petitioner in rural area, was shown from 03.10.2008 to 03.01.2012 at Kekri. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted his application form for NEET, PG 2022 and he appeared in the said examination and his result came to be declared on 24.05.2022, wherein he had secured 407 marks. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the respondents issued circular dated 03.06.2022 wherein the different Controlling Officers, were required to give certificate to the In-service candidates for serving in rural, remote and difficult area. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the Controlling Officer of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4--PMO Kekri, while sending the proforma has only counted services of the petitioner from 12.12.2019 to 01.03.2021 and he has wrongly omitted to consider the service rendered by the petitioner in rural area, as per his appointment under the Rules of 2008. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the very purpose of enactment of Rules of 2008 was to appoint Rural Medical Officer in rural area and since, the petitioner was not posted in District Headquarter and his posting was only at Community Health Centre, Kekri, as such, the benefit of rural service rendered by the petitioner, cannot be denied by the respondents. 14. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that after appointment of petitioner, the respondent-Department itself had converted post of Medical Officers into Rural Medical Officers and the petitioner being appointed against one of such posts, the service rendered by the petitioner, in rural area is required to be counted for all the purposes including the award of bonus marks. 15. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded before this Court that rural allowance was not paid to the petitioner and further CHC, Kekri was not in rural area, inasmuch as CHC Kekri is a District level Hospital since 2019 and as such, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. 16. The respondents have justified to count only 440 days of rural service rendered by the petitioner, as he had joined at CHC, Tanoti, District Ajmer from 12.12.2019 upto 01.03.2021, for the purpose of bonus marks. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after receipt of reply, has filed additional affidavit, wherein he has annexed the documents on record showing that the petitioner was paid rural allowance while he was posted at CHC, Kekri and not only the petitioner but there are other four persons also, who were paid rural allowance. 18. This Court granted time to counsel for the respondents-State to inform, as in what manner, the State Authorities are denying the benefit of rural services to the petitioner as the petitioner was paid rural allowance. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that merely payment of rural allowance will not give any right to the petitioner to claim benefit and on the contrary, the Principal Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kekri has sent a letter dated 02.09.2022, whereby decision has been taken to recover the rural allowance, which already paid to the petitioner, on the wrong premise and they intend to effect recovery from 03.10.2008 to 03.01.2012. Copy of the letter dated 02.09.2022 is shown to this Court. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. This Court finds that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Services Rules, 2008 and his posting was in CHC, Kekri and as the per definition of 'Rural' as per Rule 2(j) of the Rules of 2008, the petitioner came to be posted at CHC, Kekri which was not at the District Headquarter. 22. 21. This Court finds that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Services Rules, 2008 and his posting was in CHC, Kekri and as the per definition of 'Rural' as per Rule 2(j) of the Rules of 2008, the petitioner came to be posted at CHC, Kekri which was not at the District Headquarter. 22. This Court further finds that the respondents, at one point of time had converted the post of Medical Officers as Rural Medical Officers and the post on which the petitioner had worked, was also converted from Medical Officer to Rural Medical Officer. 23. This Court further finds that the petitioner has been paid rural allowance, at the relevant time when he was working as Rural Medical Officer and issuance of any letter of recovery now is of no consequence and the respondents in order to cover their own mistake, if have issued such a letter dated 02.09.2022, this has nothing to do for the purpose of deciding the controversy with regard to grant of bonus marks to the petitioner. 24. This Court further finds that in the earlier NEET PG Examination, which was conducted in the year 2012, the petitioner had applied as In-service candidate and his services were found to be in rural area from 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2010. 25. This Court finds that necessary certificate to the same effect was issued by the Controlling Officer/Additional Director of the Medical & Health Department, where it was found that the petitioner was working in rural area and as such, his services from 03.10.2008 to 03.01.2012 at Kekri were found to be in rural area and the necessary eligibility certificate, was issued in favour of the petitioner. 26. This Court finds that the objection which has been taken by the respondents in the reply is with regard to rural area allowance not being paid to the petitioner and the CHC, Kekri is not in rural area now, has no relevance for deciding the issue of granting benefit to the petitioner of rural service. 27. The subsequent change of CHC, Kekri into the District Level Headquarter, after the relevant period of time, when the petitioner had worked in rural area, is having no bearing in the present matter. 27. The subsequent change of CHC, Kekri into the District Level Headquarter, after the relevant period of time, when the petitioner had worked in rural area, is having no bearing in the present matter. The issue before this Court is to consider the prior period when CHC, Kekri was not declared as a District Level Hospital and as such, the stand of the respondent is not accepted. 28. The objection of the respondents that the petitioner is required to be considered for giving bonus marks only, as per the prevalent notification and earlier Rules of 2008, will not cloth the petitioner with the eligibility, suffice it to say by this Court that the petitioner is confining his relief for the period when he worked at CHC, Kekri and the same was in rural area and undisputedly, the petitioner had worked at CHC, Kekri from 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2010 and thereafter, he worked there from 03.10.2010 to 30.09.2019. The relevant period for claiming benefit of the petitioner is only from 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2010 and as such, the said period cannot be ignored by the respondents while considering the eligibility of the petitioner as In-service candidate for award of bonus marks. 29. This Court finds that the respondents have not acted in a proper manner while issuing the proforma/letter to the petitioner and as such, the respondents need to rectify the mistake. 30. Accordingly, this Court allows the present writ petition and directs the State Authorities to issue a proper certificate/proforma in favour of the petitioner, counting the rural service rendered by him at CHC, Kekri along-with other rural service. 31. The order rectifying the proforma, will be issued by the respondents within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.