Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Public Service Commission vs Dr. Jai Dev Wig And Ors. on 7 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)IIILLJ1305P&H
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Is the action of the Union Public Service Commission in granting the benefit of relaxation of age to the extent of five years to those working in Government hospitals and denying it to the members of the Faculty of the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal having answered the question in the affirmative, the Commission has approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The Union Public Service Commission advertised certain posts including that of Professor of General Surgery at the Government Medical College, Chandigarh. Besides academic qualifications etc., an age limit of 50 years was laid down. It was further provided that relaxation in age is permissible up to 55 years in the case of persons working in Government Medical Colleges.
3. The respondent Dr. Jai Dev Wig is working as an Additional Professor in the Department of Surgery at the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. Having been born on May 22, 1945, he was over 50 years of age on January 2, 1997 which was the last date for the submission of the applications. Thus, his application was not accepted by the Commission. Aggrieved by the action, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the grievance that the action of the Commission in restricting the benefit of relaxation of age to those working in Government Medical Colleges and denying it to the members of the Faculty of the PGI was arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. The Union Territory, Chandigarh, the Medical College, Chandigarh and the PGI (Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 before the Tribunal) supported the claim of Dr. Wig. It was pleaded on their behalf that the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research is fully funded by the Government of India. It follows the Government rules. The Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare is the President of the Institute. Officers of the Union Ministries of Health, Finance and Education are on the governing body of the Institute. The action of the Commission in "not allowing age relaxation to the Faculty working in the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, will not only be discriminatory but will also deny the chance to get the best possible talent selected for top positions in a new Medical Institution. "It was further pointed out that the respondent had requested the Commission to call Dr. Wig "for interview for the post of Professor (General Surgery) after giving him age relaxation." On these premises, it was pleaded that the claim made by Dr. Wig should be accepted.
5. The Commission, however, contested the claim on the ground that Dr. Wig was overage on the cut-off date and he being not in Government service, was not eligible for the benefit of relaxation.
6. After consideration of the matter, the Tribunal accepted the claim of Dr. Wig.
7. Mr. R. S. Longia, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the persons working in the PGI are different from those teaching in Government Medical Colleges. Thus, a differential treatment is clearly permissible under the law.
8. It is undoubtedly correct that Article 14 permits reasonable classification. But such classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and that differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 forbids arbitrariness,
9. Indisputably, while filling up the Faculty positions in the Medical College, the object of the Government and the Union Public Service Commission would be to select the best persons. For achieving this object, it would be reasonable to have a wide field of choice so that eminent people from everywhere in the country are able to compete. It may be, as has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that persons serving in the Government hospitals have to initially serve in rural dispensaries or in suburban areas. Yet, when they come to the Medical Colleges they discharge the same functions as are being performed by the members of the Faculty of the PGI. Thus, there is prima facie no basis for treating them differently.
10. It is indisputable that the PGI is an Institute of national importance. In fact, it has been so declared by the Act of Parliament. Section 2 of the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Act, 1966, in terms declares that it "is an Institute of National Importance". It was constituted to "develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and post-graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to bring together, as far as may be, in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity; and to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education to meet the country's needs for specialists and medical teachers." Should persons working in such an Institute be excluded from consideration for appointment to the posts of Professors in Government Medical Colleges? We find no reason to keep them out of consideration by laying down different requirement regarding age etc. The mere fact that some members of the Faculty of the PGI may not have in the initial stages of their career worked in a rural dispensary, does not entitle the Commission to exclude them from consideration or to deny the benefit of relaxation of age which is admissible to those teaching in Government Medical Colleges or working in Government Hospitals. The object being to select the best, the action of the Commission amounts to ignoring a significant section of the available talent in the country. We find no justification for such a course of action.
11. Still further, even if it is assumed that persons working in autonomous Institutes are in certain ways different from those working in Government Hospitals, the difference has no rational nexus with the object of selecting the best persons. It is undoubtedly correct that the Government docs not appoint teachers in the PGI. It may also be correct (though it has not been so contended) that members of the Faculty of the PGI do not have the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. Yet, it is undeniable that the Government has a deep and all-pervasive control in the functioning of the PGI. The Minister for Health presides over the Institute's meetings. The Secretaries of the Ministries of Health and Finance are on the governing body. The funds are totally provided by the Government. The Institute follows the instructions and rules framed by the Government. The Central Government has the power to frame the rules governing the functioning of the Institute. In this situation, it is apparent that there is really no substantive difference between the persons working in the Institute and those working in Government Medical Colleges. Even if technically, the provisions of Article 311 do not apply to the employees of the Institute, the protection under the rules and the principles of natural justice is almost the same as that applicable to the employees of the Government.
12. We are clearly of the view that the members of the Faculty in the PGI are men of distinction. It would not be in public interest to exclude them from consideration for appointment to the Senior Faculty positions in institutions imparting medical education. The benefits admissible to the employees of the Government should not and cannot be denied to the members of the Faculty in the PGI.
13. No other point has been raised.
14. Resultantly, we find no ground to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. We dismiss the petition in limine.