Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 724 (GAU)

Ruokuozhalhou Linyu v. State Of Nagaland

2022-06-29

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, SOUMITRA SAIKIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : N.KOTISWAR SINGH, J. Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Khro, learned Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland and Mr. Kekhriengulie, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dtd. 1/4/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench in WP(C) No.43/2022. In the said petition, the action of the State respondents in nominating the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to undergo the Post Graduation Course under the State sponsored quota in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal was put to challenge and a direction was sought for sponsoring the appellant on the basis of merit. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:- 3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this appeal certain basic factual aspects may be mentioned. It is the case of the appellant that a notification was issued on 22/11/2021 by the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Nagaland, inviting applications from the intending Medical Graduates, who were interested to get admission in MD/MS/Diploma Courses in the RIMS, Imphal under the "Sponsored" and "Open" category notifying that Post Graduate (PG in short) seats will be allotted to the eligible candidates based on the State wise merit list of NEET-PG 2021 through physical counseling held in RIMS, Imphal. Under the aforesaid notification, as regards the "Sponsored" category with which we are concerned, the following courses were notified: A. SPONSORED CATEGORY: Sl. No. Subject No. of Seat 1. MD (Biochemistry) 1 (One) 2. MD (Dermatology & VL) 1 (One) 3. MD (Gen. Medicine) 1 (One) 4. MD (Ophthalmology) 1 (One) 5. MD (Pediatrics) 1 (One) 6. MD (Physiology) 1 (One) 7. MS(Respiratory Medicine) 1 (One) 4. It is the case of the appellant that as per the Rules prevailing at the relevant time, the only Medical Graduates who were on regular service in the State and not on contractual basis would be eligible for applying for the aforesaid Post-Graduate courses. In this regard, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the Notification dtd. 9/11/2011 in which it has been mentioned that the contractual doctors would not be allowed to go for Post Graduate studies on Government sponsorship. In this regard, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the Notification dtd. 9/11/2011 in which it has been mentioned that the contractual doctors would not be allowed to go for Post Graduate studies on Government sponsorship. However, if they desired to do so, they would have to resign and study at their own cost as provided under Para-2 (V) of the said Notification dtd. 9/11/2011, which is reproduced herein below : "Government of Nagaland Health and Family Welfare Department NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima, the th Nov, 2011 No.MED-9/A/1/2005 : : In pursuance of Cabinet's approval vide No.CAB-2/2008 (Pt) dtd. 09/09/10, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to dispense with the mandatory requirement of 2 years of continuous service for study leave by Doctors for P.G. Courses and that any direct recruit (MBBS/BDS) can be sponsored for further studies regardless of the length of service. 2. The relaxation will also be applicable to those who have already been sponsored in the past, who could not put in the required qualified length of service. The above dispensation would however, be subject to the following conditions: (i) 50% of the States Quota will be reserved for candidates who have completed 2 years of service. In case of odd number of seats, benefits will be given to this category. (ii) For those candidates selected for P.G. Courses and who has not completed 2 years of regular Government service, only basic pay and D.A will be paid to them for 3 years or till completion of their studies whichever is earlier. (iii) Candidates who are selected for the post of Assistant Surgeon through NPSC, who are currently under going P.G. studies will be allowed to join Government service and also to continue the studies if he/she so desires. (iv) All candidates will be required to sign a bond to the effect that they will serve the Government for at least 10 years after completion of their studies. In the event of their inability to serve for 10 years, they will be required to refund the entire cost of their studies or the salary paid in respect of category (iii) to the Government. (v) However contract Doctors will not be allowed to go for Post Graduate studies on Government sponsorship. If they desire to do so, they will have to resign and studies at their own cost. (v) However contract Doctors will not be allowed to go for Post Graduate studies on Government sponsorship. If they desire to do so, they will have to resign and studies at their own cost. Sd/- LALTHARA Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland No.MED-9A/1/2005 Dated Kohima, the 9 th Nov, 2011 ........................................ ......................................." 5. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant himself is a contractual doctor and as such, he was not eligible for applying to the said PG course offered by the RIMS at the relevant time. Accordingly, he did not apply for the same. However, though the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were also not eligible for applying for the said undergoing PG course for the reason that they were also contractual doctors, somehow they submitted their applications. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the respondent nos. 5 and 6 might have made their applications for undertaking the said PG courses, the State Government, which was fully cognizant of the Rules, ought not to have entertained their applications. Nevertheless, the applications of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were entertained by the State Government purportedly on the plea that no doctor serving on regular basis in the State had applied for the same and the aforesaid respondent nos. 5 and 6 were accordingly, nominated by the Director of the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare and the said decision was duly intimated to the State Government as can be seen from the letter of nomination dtd. 15/12/2021. The said nomination letter dtd. 15/12/2021 also clearly mentioned that only 2 (two) applications were received from the doctors to undergo PG Courses at RIMS for the academic session 2021 and they had all qualified in the NEET-PG-2021 and 7 (seven) seats were available for in-service sponsored category for the State of Nagaland. In the said letter it was also mentioned that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were appointed for 12 months only or till regular appointment were made through NPSC and accordingly, the Principal Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland, requested the Government to nominate the respondent nos. 5 and 6 under the State quota subject to signing of Bond and also that they would not claim any Government Job on completion of the courses unless vacancies arise. 5 and 6 under the State quota subject to signing of Bond and also that they would not claim any Government Job on completion of the courses unless vacancies arise. Based on the aforesaid letter by the Principal Director of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland, the respondent No.5 and 6 were nominated for the PG courses for the session 2021 as can be seen from the letter dtd. 14/1/2022 issued by the Under secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland, addressed to the Dean (Academics), RIMS. 6. In response to the said nomination letter dtd. 14/1/2022, the Dean (Academic), RIMS informed the Government of Nagaland vide his letter dtd. 17/1/2022 that the rules for admission in MD/MS/Diploma courses in the Institute (RIMS) under "in-service sponsored" category allowed only those candidates who were employed on regular basis. It was further informed that while scrutinizing the application forms of the 2 (two) candidates i.e. the respondent nos.5 and 6, they were found to be engaged on "temporary basis". Hence, their applications were liable to be rejected as they did not fulfill the rules and regulations of PG admission in RIMS, 2021. However, it was also mentioned that the Institute was willing to consider them provided the following 2 (two) conditions were fulfilled: (i) A letter justifying the reasons for sending these candidates against the existing rules and regulations for admission, and (ii) an undertaking stating that, (a) if any dispute arises letter, the State Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Nagaland shall take sole responsibility and; (b) the candidate(trainee), if selected, will be paid by the State Government at par with other medical officers of his/her rank during the 3 years course and will be employed by the State Government after completing the postgraduate training at the Institute. 7. Pursuant to the said letter from the RIMS to the State Government, Nagaland, the Government authorities responded to the same by a return letter, dtd. 20/1/2022 in which it was mentioned that their candidature were forwarded for consideration for admission into MD Courses in the Institute under "in service sponsored" category for the following reasons: "(i) They have been engaged on "temporary basis" against the newly created posts in the wake of COVID pandemic. The engagement was done after inviting applications through open advertisements and conducting a selection process through a departmental board. The engagement was done after inviting applications through open advertisements and conducting a selection process through a departmental board. These posts will be filled on regular basis through NPSC for which they are eligible and keeping in view the shortage of qualified medical officers in the State, they stand a very good chance of getting selection for the regular post. (ii) There are no applications received by the State Government from "in-service" government medical officers, on account of which there should not be any dispute. (iii) Government has taken a bond from the two candidates wherein they have undertakings to bear the cost for the course and also serve the State Government against a regular post, I selected as per normal procedure or on contractual/engagement basis, whichever is applicable immediately after completion of their studies for a period of 5 years." 8. It appears that on the basis of the said letter and clarification by the State Government of Nagaland to the Dean (Academics) of RIMS, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were duly admitted by the RIMS and they have been undergoing respective MD courses in (Dermatology and VL) and (Pediatrics). 9. The appellant is, however, mainly concerned with the admission of the respondent no.6 in MD (Pediatrics) as according to the appellant, he is more meritorious than the respondent no.6 having obtained more marks in the NEET and was keen to undertake MD course in (Paediatrics). 10. It has been submitted that after the nomination of the aforesaid respondent nos. 5 and 6 for undergoing PG Courses as mentioned above, the Government of Nagaland issued an Office Memorandum on 27/1/2022 which according to the appellant was tailor-made to suit the admissions of the private respondent in MD Courses. In the office Memorandum issued on 27/1/2022 i.e. after the nomination of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, the Government of Nagaland classified the candidates into three categories, who were eligible for sponsorship under the State Quota at RIMS. "A. Categories of candidate: For the purpose of selection for sponsorship under this O.M. (i) Category I will comprise of candidates from amongst the regular in-service officers of the Nagaland Health service (ii) Category II will comprise of serving contractual officers under the State Government, including those employed on contractual basis under NHM, NSACS, NHAK etc. "A. Categories of candidate: For the purpose of selection for sponsorship under this O.M. (i) Category I will comprise of candidates from amongst the regular in-service officers of the Nagaland Health service (ii) Category II will comprise of serving contractual officers under the State Government, including those employed on contractual basis under NHM, NSACS, NHAK etc. (iii) Category III will comprise of indigenous, permanent domicile doctors of Nagaland who are not employed under the State Government." The said Office Memorandum further provided the manner of selection as provided under Para-B of the said Office Memorandum which reads as follows: "B. Preference for Selection: 1. First preference will be given to Category I candidates who have cleared the NEET (PG) Exam irrespective of ranking in the merit list. A separate State merit list for Category I candidates will be prepared deduced from (1). Ranking in the NEET (PG) Exam with a weightage of not exceeding 70 percentage points, and (2) weightage not exceeding 15 points each for length of service rendered in 'B' and 'C' category place of postings. 2. In case there are insufficient candidates from category I, candidates will be selected from Category II candidates who have cleared the NEET (PG) Exam irrespective of ranking in the merit list. A separate State merit list for Category I candidates will be prepared deduced from (1). Ranking in the NEET (PG) Exam with a weightage of not exceeding 50 percentage points (2). Length of service rendered with a weightage not exceeding 20 points and (3). Weightage of not exceeding 15 points each for length of service rendered in 'B' and 'C' category place of postings." 11. It has been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dtd. 27/1/2022 that it is to be read with Notification No. MED-9/A/1/2005/378 dtd. 9/11/2021 with immediate effect and until further order. It has been further submitted that after the issuance of the said Memorandum dtd. 27/1/2022, the State of Government, Nagaland, issued an advertisement on 28/1/2022 purportedly in accordance with the said new OM dtd. 27/1/2022. However, instead of the advertising all the 7 (seven) seats available under the State sponsored quota, the State Government advertised only 5 (five) seats by not taking into consideration of the 2 (two) seats which were earlier given to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Sl No. Subject No. of Seat 1. MD (Biochemistry) 1 (One) 2. 27/1/2022. However, instead of the advertising all the 7 (seven) seats available under the State sponsored quota, the State Government advertised only 5 (five) seats by not taking into consideration of the 2 (two) seats which were earlier given to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Sl No. Subject No. of Seat 1. MD (Biochemistry) 1 (One) 2. MD (Gen.Medicine) 1 (One) 3. MS (Ophthalmology) 1 (One) 4. MD (physiology) 1 (One) 5. MS (Respiratory Medicine) 1 (One) 12. The appellant in view of the aforesaid advertisement and the OM dtd. 27/1/2022 made an application for undergoing PG course in MD (Respiratory Medicine) in terms of the advertisement dtd. 28/1/2022 and submitted a representation on 4/2/2022 appealing for a transparent selection process for the total 7 (seven) PG seats under the State sponsored category. It appears that on the basis of the application made by the writ appellant he was selected for undergoing MD (Respiratory Medicine) course as notified by the RIMS authority vide order dtd. 18/2/2022. However, the appellant did not join the MD (Respiratory Medicine) course as he did not wish to undergo the said Course. DECISION BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE 13. Being aggrieved by the nomination of the respondent no.5 and 6 to the aforesaid MD courses in (Dermatology and VL) and (Paediatrics), the appellant filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No.43/2022 before the Single Judge, Kohima Bench of this Court. The said petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the petitioner (appellant herein) had not challenged the selection of the private respondents which was communicated by the order dtd. 22/1/2022 by the Dean (Academic) RIMS, Imphal. Though the petitioner took a plea that this order was not available to him at the time of filing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge rejected the said plea by stating that the petitioner could have amended his writ petition on coming to know of the same and after getting the possession of the said order which was part of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities but the petitioner failed to do so. 14. On the specific plea raised by the petitioner that the OM dtd. 14. On the specific plea raised by the petitioner that the OM dtd. 27/1/2022 is illegal for the reason that the authorities ignored the inter-se merit position of the candidate in the NEET-PG Exams, the learned Single Judge held that since the petitioner was not the highest scorer or the most meritorious person, he could not make any claim or take any advantage. Further, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had submitted their applications to the authorities which were considered by the authorities and the petitioner did not make any application though the last date of submitting the application was 15/1/2022 and accordingly, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner cannot claim any advantage only because he obtained more marks than the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the NEET-PG exams. The learned Single Judge also held that since the private respondents had duly signed the bond that they would bear their own cost for undertaking the PG course and were willing to serve the State Government either on regular or contractual basis after completion of the course, their admission may not be disturbed. 15. The learned Single Judge held that though the petitioner relied on the decisions in Asha vs. Pt. BD. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors. reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 and Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel and Ors vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 1 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the selection has to be made on merit, but in the present case, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of these judgments as the petitioner submitted his application only after the second notification, which was issued on 28/1/2022, by which time the private respondents had already been selected to undergo PG course vide order dtd. 22/1/2022. 16. Learned Single Judge also made the observation that the earlier Notification dtd. 9/11/2021 though made only the regular doctors eligible, the same did not totally bar the contractual doctors to undergo PG courses provided they resign. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT 17. 22/1/2022. 16. Learned Single Judge also made the observation that the earlier Notification dtd. 9/11/2021 though made only the regular doctors eligible, the same did not totally bar the contractual doctors to undergo PG courses provided they resign. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that, first of all, when the first advertisement was issued i.e. on 22/11/2021, the question of any contractual doctors applying for undergoing the PG course did not arise as the contractual doctors were specifically debarred from applying for the courses unless they resign, as mentioned in the Notification dtd. 9/11/2011 and as such, the petitioner could not have applied for undergoing PG course in terms of the first Notification dtd. 22/11/2021. Under the circumstances, even if any contractual doctor including the respondent nos.5 and 6 had applied, the authority ought to have rejected their applications since they had not yet resigned from their contractual posts and they were working still as contractual doctors. However, instead of asking the respondent nos.5 and 6 to resign, the State authorities considered their applications for undergoing MD Courses on the plea that there was no regular doctor who had applied for the said PG course. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was the intention of the State Government to sponsor only the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and took the convenient plea that no regular doctors who were serving had applied. As per the appellant, if the intention of the State authorities was to allow contractual doctors to apply for these courses, it should have made it known to all other contractual doctors, in which event, the appellant also could have applied for the course as had been done by the respondent nos.5 and 6. It has been, accordingly, submitted that the appellant cannot be made to suffer merely because he did not apply for undergoing PG course in terms of the first notification dtd. 22/1/2021. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the circumstances, by considering the non eligible candidates for sponsorship, the authorities have violated the equality clause as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as only eligible candidates could have been considered and not non-eligible candidates as has been done in the present case. 19. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that it is not that the State Government, Nagaland, was ignorant of the rules. In fact, the RIMS authorities had specifically pointed out the ineligibility of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 for appointment vide its letter dtd. 17/1/2022 and once it was made known to the State Government by the authorities of the RIMS, the State Government ought to have re-advertised the said courses rather than to proceed with the nomination of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken exception to the provisions of the OM dtd. 27/1/2022 wherein it has been provided that in case there are insufficient candidates from Category-I, the nomination can be done even from Category-II candidates irrespective of ranking in the merit list in the NEET (PG) Examination. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, by making this provision which renders the merit position of the candidates in the NEET (PG) Examination redundant, it can lead to arbitrariness on the part of the authorities as they can resort to pick and choose method, and as such, the said clause for nominating candidates irrespective of ranking in the merit list is arbitrary and cannot stand the scrutiny of law under the Article 14 of the Constitution, and to that extent, such a provision is liable to be struck down. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under normal circumstances even if any contractual doctor applies for sponsorship under the State quota, he has to first resign and then can apply for sponsorship but in the present case, instead of resigning, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 applied for sponsorship and the same was accepted by the State and their names were nominated. Further, it was only after an objection was raised by the RIMS, Imphal that undertakings were given by the respondent nos.5 and 6 to pay the fees for their own courses and that the same would not be paid by the State. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said 2 (two) seats in MD, (Dermatology and VL) and (Paediatrics) ought to have been advertised afresh, so as to enable all the eligible candidates to apply for the courses in terms of OM dtd. 27/1/2022, which was not done. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said 2 (two) seats in MD, (Dermatology and VL) and (Paediatrics) ought to have been advertised afresh, so as to enable all the eligible candidates to apply for the courses in terms of OM dtd. 27/1/2022, which was not done. 22. It has been submitted that these two courses are exclusively under the State sponsorship quota and are not included in the open category as in the case of MD (General Medicine) which is available under both the State sponsored quota as well as open category. These two posts ought to have been made open to the all contractual doctors and not only to the respondent nos. 5 and 6. It has been submitted that even if they had volunteered to pay from their own to undergo the said courses, that course of action is available only if they are undergoing PG course under the open category not under the State sponsored category. CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE RESPONDENTS 23. Ms. T. Khro, learned Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland, in response to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the advertisement issued on 22/11/2021 was widely circulated in the local newspapers of the State. However, except respondent nos. 5 and 6, no one had filed any application. It is a matter of record that the appellant did not apply in terms of the said advertisement. In fact, the RIMS authorities also issued a notification on 15/1/2022 inviting the last date of PG counseling for the academic session of 2021. However, no application was received from any candidate except the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as mentioned above till 14/1/2021. 24. Learned Government Advocate further submits that after the applications of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were submitted to the RIMS authorities, the RIMS authorities wrote back to the State Government on 17/1/2022 seeking justification for sponsoring the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The State Government clarified the same in their letter dtd. 21/1/2022 by stating that Nagaland does not have a medical College of its own and continues to face deficiency of qualified doctors, especially specialists. 5 and 6. The State Government clarified the same in their letter dtd. 21/1/2022 by stating that Nagaland does not have a medical College of its own and continues to face deficiency of qualified doctors, especially specialists. The State Government had furnished a proper justification for nomination of the aforesaid 2 (two) candidates and having satisfied with the justification of the State, the RIMS authorities accepted their nomination and accordingly, they were admitted to undergo PG courses in RIMS and they are presently undergoing the said courses and as such, it may cause serious prejudice to them if their admissions are interfered with at this belated stage. 25. Learned State Counsel also submits that after the Post Graduate seats were allotted to the State under the State Quota in RIMS but all these seats were not availed fully, and as such, the Government issued an Office Memorandum dtd. 27/1/2022 making it eligible to all the doctors, by not restricting to regular in-service doctors only, but by making these open to the contractual doctors also who are working under NHM, NSACS, NHAK etc on contractual basis and also to the indigenous permanent domiciled doctors of Nagaland who may not employed under the State Government. 26. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that what the State of Nagaland did was to ensure that the PG Courses available are pursued by the genuine doctors who are in the State of Nagaland, whether they are in the State Government service or contractual service or indigenous permanent domiciled doctors. CONTETNIONS OF THE PRIVATE RESPNDENTS 27. Mr. Kekhriengulie, learned counsel for the private respondent nos.5 and 6 has questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay. It has been submitted that first of all the appellant/petitioner had approached the Court belatedly. He should have approached the Court before 10/2/2022 when the State Government made the nomination of candidates of Nagaland for the second counseling for Post Graduate Courses for the Session 2021 in addition to the names of the private respondents which were earlier sponsored by the State Government and consequently were given admission by the RIMS on 22/1/2022. The appellant approached the authorities only on 4/2/2022 by submitting representation as regards the nomination of the private respondents. 28. The appellant approached the authorities only on 4/2/2022 by submitting representation as regards the nomination of the private respondents. 28. Thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition only on 28/2/2022 after the admission process was over and as such, the appellant approached the Court at a very belated stage, hence, no such effective relief can be granted to the present appellant. That apart, it has been submitted, as also held by the learned Single Judge that the order of selection of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to undergo the Post Graduate Course had not been challenged nor the letter of RIMS authorities in accepting the candidature of the respondent nos.5 and 6. What was challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is only the letter dtd. 15/12/2021 written by the Principal Director of Health and Family Welfare Directorate, Nagaland to the Principal Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland, that too, very belatedly. In the said letter the name of the private respondents were merely forwarded for nomination under the State Quota. The actual nomination of the said private respondents vide letter dtd. 14/1/2022 to the RIMS authorities was never challenged by the petitioner. 29. Learned counsel for the private respondent nos.5 and 6 further submits that the justification offered by the State Government to the RIMS authorities for accepting the nomination of the private respondents as contained in the letter dtd. 20/1/2022 was never also put to challenge by the petitioner/writ appellant. Similarly, order dtd. 22/1/2022 issued by the RIMS authorities notifying the admission of the private respondents for undergoing Post Graduate Course was also never put to challenge. 30. It has been submitted that by this time much water has flowed down the river, and now after the private respondents had been admitted, having paid their fees and having joined the courses w.e.f. 1/2/2022, disturbing their academic career at this stage would cause great prejudice and irreparable loss to them. 31. Learned counsel for the private respondents also submits that after the Notification dtd. 28/1/2022 was issued inviting the interested candidates for undergoing the 5(five) Courses mentioned therein, the appellant also applied for the same in respect of MD (Medicine) /MD (Respiratory Medicine) and accordingly, the appellant was nominated for undergoing Post Graduate Course in RIMS vide letter dtd. 10/2/2022. 31. Learned counsel for the private respondents also submits that after the Notification dtd. 28/1/2022 was issued inviting the interested candidates for undergoing the 5(five) Courses mentioned therein, the appellant also applied for the same in respect of MD (Medicine) /MD (Respiratory Medicine) and accordingly, the appellant was nominated for undergoing Post Graduate Course in RIMS vide letter dtd. 10/2/2022. Thereupon, the RIMS authorities notified the order on 18/2/2022 for admission of the nominated candidates for undergoing Postgraduate Degree Course in which the name of the appellant appeared at Serial No.3 in respect of Nagaland (In-service Sponsored), whereby he was selected for undergoing PG course in MD (Respiratory Medicine). However, instead of taking admission and also without disclosing these relevant facts, the petitioner filed the writ petition belatedly only on 28/2/2022. 32. It has been submitted that if the appellant did not challenge the aforesaid orders as mentioned above, the admission of the private respondents could not have been challenged and learned Single Judge could not have granted any effective relief in his favour without challenging these orders. 33. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh vs. Central Government and Ors., reported in (1986) 4 SCC 667 , it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondents that no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the plea of the appellant. 34. In response, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he was not in possession of any of the documents/copies of the orders referred to by the learned State Counsel as well as by the respondents. Nevertheless, he challenged the nomination order of the private respondents vide letter dtd. 15/11/2021 and once the same has been challenged all the subsequent actions taken thereafter consequent thereto shall be deemed to be under question. Further, since the nomination is the foundation of all the subsequent orders for admission, if the said nomination order is set aside, all the subsequent orders passed pursuant to the said original nomination cannot be sustained in law. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties revolves around two issues. Firstly, as to whether the nomination of the private respondent nos. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties revolves around two issues. Firstly, as to whether the nomination of the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 was valid or not and secondly, if not, what relief can be granted. 36. To understand the issues in proper perspective, we have to keep in mind the legal position that any action taken by the authority has to be examined primarily on the basis of the existing rules and not on the basis of subsequent changes in law unless by implication or otherwise made known that such subsequent changes in law would have retrospective effect or will validate or invalidate the past acts. If we keep this basic principle of law in mind, we have to examine the relevant rules which were existing when the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 were nominated by the State of Nagaland for undergoing PG courses in the RIMS and also the changes made in the law. 37. It is not in dispute that the whole process of nomination started with the notification issued by the Director of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Nagaland on 22/11/2021, whereby the applications were invited form the intending medical doctors who were seeking admission to MD/MS/ Diploma courses in RIMS under sponsored and open category. It was also notified in the said notification that PG seats will be allotted to eligible candidates on the basis of the State wise merit list of NEET PG 2020-2021 for the physical counseling to be held in RIMS, Imphal. The aforesaid notification, therefore, makes it very clear that the candidates must be eligible and secondly, the selection will be based on the State wise merit list of NEET PG 2020-2021. 38. In the present case since the issue revolves around sponsored candidates and not to open candidates, we will focus our attention to whether the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were eligible when they were sponsored by the State Government of Nagaland and whether the said sponsorship was based on the State wise merit list of NEET PG 2020-2021 at the time when the said Notification was issued on 22/11/2021. 39. In order to appreciate this, we have to see what were the rules prevalent when the said Notification dtd. 39. In order to appreciate this, we have to see what were the rules prevalent when the said Notification dtd. 22/11/2021 was issued. The rules prevalent at the relevant time were encoded in the Notification dtd. 9/11/2011, which have been reproduced above. In para-2(v) of the aforesaid Notification dtd. 9/11/2011 as quoted above, it has been categorically mentioned that the contractual doctors could not be allowed for post graduate studies under Government sponsorship and if they desire to do so, they will have to resign and study at their own cost. Thus, the aforesaid rules make it amply clear that those doctors who were working on contractual basis are not otherwise eligible, unless they resign. If they resign, they no more are contractual employers. 40. The next consideration is whether the said rules continued to remain in operation when the sponsorship and admission of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 was finalized or whether there were any changes to the said rules. It has been pointed out that subsequently, changes were made in the rules which enable sponsorship of the doctors who were working on contractual basis. In this regard, the Office Memorandum issued on 27/1/2022 has been brought to our notice, under which, the Nagaland Government made three categories of candidates who could be sponsored for undergoing PG Courses under the sponsored quota: (i) Category I, comprising of candidates from amongst the regular in-service officers of the Nagaland Health service. (ii) Category II, comprising of serving contractual officers under the State Government, including those employed on contractual basis under NHM, NSACS, NHAK etc. (iii) Category III, comprising of indigenous, permanent domicile doctors of Nagaland who are not employed under the State Government. 41. The matter could have been closed, if the State Government had issued the advertisement/Notification for all the 7(seven) P.G. Courses and recommended the candidates including the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the basis of the modified rules as contained in the Office Memorandum dtd. 27/1/2022 whereunder even doctors who were on contractual basis could also be sponsored. 42. Though the State Government also made the sponsorship subsequently on the basis of the aforesaid modified OM dtd. 27/1/2022, by issuing an advertisement on 28/1/2022, but it was in respect of only five categories of P.G. courses. What is important to be noted is that the P.G. courses to which the respondent nos. 42. Though the State Government also made the sponsorship subsequently on the basis of the aforesaid modified OM dtd. 27/1/2022, by issuing an advertisement on 28/1/2022, but it was in respect of only five categories of P.G. courses. What is important to be noted is that the P.G. courses to which the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were sponsored, were not advertised and the sponsorship of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were not based under the new rules but when the old rules were in existence. 43. We of course, will be more focused with the respondent no.6 as the appellant was seeking admission in the PG in Paediatrics Course to which respondent no.6 was admitted. From the records it is seen that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were not sponsored under the new modified rules but under the old rules which was prevailing prior i.e. notification dtd. 9/11/2011 and the respondent no.6 paid the necessary fees including admission fees, tuition fees, library fees and hostel fees etc on 24/1/2022 and as such, the issuance of the aforesaid subsequent amended rules under the OM dtd. 27/1/2022 is of no relevance to examine the legality of the admission sponsorship and admission of the private respondents. 44. Further, there is nothing mentioned in the aforesaid O.M. dtd. 27/1/2022 that it will have retrospective effect so as to save such nominations/sponsorships made prior to issuance of the said O.M. dtd. 27/1/2022. 45. It is the specific case of the State Government that when the first notification was issued on 22/11/2021 advertising the availability of the seats for the PG courses under the sponsored category, no one else except the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had applied and since only they had applied they were sponsored. Further, though the RIMS authorities had pointed out that since they were not regular employees but contractual employees and hence not eligible, the RIMS authorities also informed the State of Nagaland that they could be admitted if certain undertakings are given by the State Government as mentioned above. In that regard the State Government had clarified to the RIMS authorities that these respondent nos. In that regard the State Government had clarified to the RIMS authorities that these respondent nos. 5 & 6 were recommended for the reason that they have been engaged on "temporary basis" against the newly created posts in the wake of COVID pandemic and in view of shortage of qualified medical officers in the State, they stand a very good chance of getting selected for regular posts. Further, as no applications were received by the State Government from "in-service" government medical officers, there should not be any dispute. It was also mentioned that the State Government has taken bonds from the two candidates to bear the costs for the courses and they will serve the State Government if selected after completion of their studies for a period of 5 years. 46. From the above what can be ascertained is that though the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 were recommended for undertaking the PG courses in RIMS against the State sponsored quota by the State of Nagaland, it was not done under the new modified rules under which contractual doctors are eligible for sponsorship. It was done under the old rules when contractual doctors were not eligible for sponsorship, unless they resigned. We also have noted that the said respondents did not resign from their posts and they continued to work under the State Government on contractual basis. Normally, such a sponsorship would not have been questioned if no complaint had been raised from any quarter. However, the appellant has challenged the sponsorship of the respondent nos. 5 & 6 on the ground that the appellant herein had scored higher marks than them in the State wise merit list of NEET PG 2020-2021 but he was not given the opportunity for the P.G. courses like the private respondent nos.5 and 6. There is no dispute by the State respondents or by the private respondents about the appellant being more meritorious than the respondent nos.5 and 6 as per the State wise merit list of NEET PG 2020-2021. The appellant's case is also that he did not apply for the reason that he was not eligible at the relevant time, being a contractual employee, and had he known that the State Government was entertaining applications from ineligible candidates like contractual doctors, the appellant could have also applied for the same. The appellant's case is also that he did not apply for the reason that he was not eligible at the relevant time, being a contractual employee, and had he known that the State Government was entertaining applications from ineligible candidates like contractual doctors, the appellant could have also applied for the same. However, since the same was not made public by the authorities, he did not apply. Therefore, the State Government cannot take the plea that no candidate except for the aforesaid two candidates, i.e. the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had applied for the PG courses and that their applications were forwarded in view of the acute shortage of doctors having PG qualification. 47. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that entertaining applications from the ineligible candidates itself amounts to discrimination and violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equality clause as encapsulated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The said clause also brings within its fold equal opportunity to be provided to all especially in matters where State is involved. 48. In the present case, if the Government of Nagaland felt that because of lack of response from the in-service Doctors and considering the acute need for Post Graduate Doctors, these seats reserved for sponsored candidates to undertake PG Course should be made open to other non-in-service candidate also, i.e. by offering these seats to contractual doctors also, the next thing the Government of Nagaland could have done was to re-advertise all the seats so that not only the private respondent nos. 5 and 6, but all the other contractual doctors also could get the opportunity to apply for the desired PG Courses. 49. This having been not done, we are of the view that the State Government acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by sponsoring only two contractual doctors who were otherwise not eligible and by not making it public that contractual doctors could also apply for the PG courses. 50. We are also not impressed with the argument advanced by the State that since only the private respondent nos.5 and 6 had applied, their names and were sponsored. 50. We are also not impressed with the argument advanced by the State that since only the private respondent nos.5 and 6 had applied, their names and were sponsored. If other candidates were not made known by the State authority that even contractual doctors could apply, they could not have applied for sponsorship and as such, this explanation offered by the State Government does not hold any water. When the Rules are very clear that those doctors who are working on contractual basis, unless they resign, cannot apply for the PG Courses, any relaxation to the Rules to sponsor the respondent nos.5 and 6 would not be permissible unless Rules provide for such relaxation. Nothing has been brought to our notice about the power of the State Government to relax the eligibility criteria under the then existing Rules as notified on 9/11/2011. Thus, we hold that sponsoring ineligible candidates that too, by not offering to other similarly situated candidates, is completely illegal being arbitrary and discriminatory and as such, cannot be sustained in law. 51. We accordingly, find force with the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the State in sponsoring the respondent nos.5 and 6 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the stand of the State Government is that because of shortage of postgraduate doctors in the State of Nagaland and since no in-service candidate had applied, the authority ought to have re-advertised the P.G. courses by making it known to all other candidates including those who were working on contractual basis that they could apply. The appellant could not have applied under the earlier advertisement dtd. 22/11/2021 as at that time he was not eligible as he was only a contractual doctor. Unless, it was made known to him by way of advertisement or otherwise that even contractual employee can apply for undergoing PG course under the sponsored category, he could not have applied. Therefore, in our view the State Government cannot take the plea that since no in-service candidate had applied but only the respondent nos. 5 and 6, only their cases were processed. The State Government could not have entertained the applications of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 at all as they were not eligible, even if it is presumed that the respondent nos. 5 and 6, only their cases were processed. The State Government could not have entertained the applications of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 at all as they were not eligible, even if it is presumed that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were aware that they were not eligible. 52. The fact that the State Government was very much aware that they were not eligible is fortified by the subsequent correspondence between the RIMS authorities who had informed the State Government that the case of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 could not be considered as they are not eligible. It appears to us that the State respondents were particularly interested only in respect of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, as otherwise, once the RIMS had raised the objection about their candidature, the State authority could have re-advertised the PG courses inviting applications from other contractual doctors also. 53. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Government knew that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were not eligible to be sponsored for undertaking the PG course under the State sponsored quota and the State Government pursued their case only. If the Government had re-advertised allowing other contractual employees to apply, they could have applied for admission under the PG Course under the State sponsored quota. To that extent we hold that the act of the State Government in sponsoring candidature of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India by denying equal opportunity to similarly situated contractual doctors. Accordingly, the sponsorship of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 cannot be said to be valid. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not able to agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that as the respondent nos.5 and 6 had applied, the appellant could have also applied, as the appellant could not have applied as he was not eligible at that time. Neither, the State authorities also made it known publicly that contractual doctors also could apply. For the reasons discussed above, we are also not able to agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that since the respondent nos.5 and 6 had already executed the bond, their admission need not be disturbed. Neither, the State authorities also made it known publicly that contractual doctors also could apply. For the reasons discussed above, we are also not able to agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that since the respondent nos.5 and 6 had already executed the bond, their admission need not be disturbed. However, we also hold that the admission of the respondent nos.5 and 6 need not be disturbed at this stage, for a different reason as will be discussed hereinafter. Further, we also hold that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the earlier Notification dtd. 22/11/2021 though made the regular doctors eligible, the same did not debar contractual doctors is contrary to the facts, as at the relevant time, when the sponsorship was made, there is nothing to show that the respondent nos.5 and 6 had resigned from their contractual appointment. 54. The next issue which arises for consideration is, what is to be done if their admissions are considered invalid and thus, illegal. 55. Under normal circumstances, we could have quashed or set aside their admission and consider the case of the appellant for State sponsorship. Unfortunately, that is not the possible course of action which can be taken now in view of the delay which has occurred. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number decisions has held that admission to medical courses has to be completed within a time bound period. 56. We have noted that though this appeal was filed before the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court, the same was allowed to be transferred to the Principal Bench of this Court and records were received by the Principal Bench on 5/5/2022 and thereafter, the matter was placed for the first time before this Bench on 18/5/2022 on which date we expressed our desire to know from the parties as to whether it will still be permissible for the writ appellant to be admitted in the RIMS in MD Course in Paediatrics if the appeal succeeds. On failure to get proper response from the parties, we sought assistance from Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel representing National Medical Commission as regards the last date of admission for PG Courses. Accordingly, Mr. Bora submitted before this Court on 25/5/2022 a copy of the order dtd. 9/5/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Miscellaneous Application No.1388/2021 passed in WP(C) No.76/2015 [Ashish Ranjan and Ors. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel representing National Medical Commission as regards the last date of admission for PG Courses. Accordingly, Mr. Bora submitted before this Court on 25/5/2022 a copy of the order dtd. 9/5/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Miscellaneous Application No.1388/2021 passed in WP(C) No.76/2015 [Ashish Ranjan and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.] stating that the last date for admission in All India Quota and State Quota counseling for post graduate (MD/MS/Diploma) courses has been fixed on 7/5/2022. Mr. A.M. Bora also referred to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 225 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the time schedule for admission to various courses in medical colleges and as far as, time schedule for admission process in PG courses (Broad Specialty) Medical Courses for All-India Quota and State Quota, the same was fixed as 31st, May and it was also specifically mentioned that in any circumstances the last date for admission/joining should not be extended after 31st, May. Thus, the last date fixed for admission to PG courses had already been lapsed when this matter was taken up by us as mentioned above. 57. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Association of Private medical and the Dental colleges of Chhattishgarh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2017 8 SCC 627 reiterated that admission in medical education including postgraduate medical courses must be completed within the time frame as directed by the Supreme Court and there cannot be any extension of time. 58. In view of the above legal position obtaining, since admission cannot be given to the appellant now, depriving the respondent nos. 5 and 6 of their admissions though not valid may not serve any purpose, inasmuch as if their admissions are set aside and quashed as illegal, the said seats would remain vacant which cannot be filled up by the appellant or by any other candidate which will not be in the interest of the State nor the desirable course of action. 59. 59. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Faiza Choudhury vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2012 (10) SCC 149 that it will not be permissible to accommodate a candidate who is in a merit list published in a particular year to be given admission in the subsequent year as that would cause great prejudice to the candidates of the subsequent years. It has been observed in the aforesaid case that a medical seat has a life span only for the year it falls and that too, only till the cutoff date fixed by the Court and the carry forward principle is unknown to the professional courses like Medicine, Engineering, Dental etc. Accordingly, for this reason, we cannot direct admission of the appellant for any PG course in the subsequent academic session also. 60. Under the circumstances, what we can say that though the appellant has been able to establish that the admissions given to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the RIMS to undertake PG courses is illegal, yet, for the reasons discussed above, we are not inclined to disturb the admission of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, nor can we direct the State Authorities to give the appellant admission to a future vacancy/seat of PG course in the next academic session as that will be impermissible and will cause prejudice to the fresh candidates. 61. However, this does not mean that the appellant would be left with no relief. 62. Under such circumstances as discussed above the only relief, that we can grant to the appellant is by imposing a cost of Rs.25, 000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the State Government to be paid to the appellant for the wrong committed on him by depriving him an opportunity of being considered for admission in the sponsored PG course in Medicine (Paediatrics). We have also kept in mind that even if the appellant gets sponsored, there was no certainty that he will be given admission by the RIMS authorities to PG course of his choice. Under the circumstances, we feel that imposing a cost of Rs.25, 000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the State Government to be paid to the appellant for the sufferings and prejudices caused to the appellant will be just and sufficient. 63. Under the circumstances, we feel that imposing a cost of Rs.25, 000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the State Government to be paid to the appellant for the sufferings and prejudices caused to the appellant will be just and sufficient. 63. We have also kept in mind that the appellant had applied for sponsorship to undertake P.G. course in terms of the subsequent advertisement/notification issued on 28/1/2022 and the appellant was selected for P.G. Course in MD (Respiratory Medicine) which he declined to accept. However, this subsequent act of the appellant will not have the effect of effacing the illegality committed in sponsoring the respondent nos.5 and 6 as per the earlier Notification dtd. 22/11/2021 as they were not eligible and no equal opportunity was given to other similarly situated candidates like the appellant. 64. As regards the challenge to the OM dtd. 27/1/2022, with regard to the provision that nomination can be done from Category-II candidates (those who are working on contractual basis) irrespective of the ranking in the NEET (PG) Examination, we could like to observe that since that issue was not decided by the learned Single Judge, we leave it open to be decided in an appropriate case. 65. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we allow the appeal by interfering with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 1/4/2022 without interfering with the admission already given to the respondent nos.5 and 6 to undergo P.G. Course in MD (Dermatology and VL) and MD (Paediatrics) and by imposing cost to the State authority as ordered above. 66. Let the case records be remitted to the Kohima Bench of this Court.