Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur D/O N D Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 September, 2020
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9113/2020
1. Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur D/o N D Mathur, Aged About 42
Years, R/o B-186, 10 B Scheme, Gopalpura Bypass,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Tarun Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal Parmar, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Room No. 5 Scientist Hostel Defence Lab,
Drdo, Ratanada, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Madhu Shekhar Bissa S/o Bhanu Shekhar Bissa, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o 12/272 Chopasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. (Mrs.) Mudgal Sneha Raghunath D/o Raghunath
Mudgal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dudiyon Ki Dhani,
Beriwala Talla, Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. Dr. Ramveer Patel S/o Shivcharan Patel, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village- Chirawal Mali, Post Nagar, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2. Director, Directorate Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chairman, Neet Pg Medical And Dental Admission/
Counseling Board- 2020, And Principal, Government
Dental College, Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Medical Council Of India, Through Its Secretary, Pocket
14, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9211/2020
Dr. Ajay Singh S/o Ravindra Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
151/46 Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302020
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM)
(2 of 11) [CW-9113/2020]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary,
Department Of Medical Education, Secretariat,
Jaipur(Rajasthan)
2. Chairman, Neet Pg Medical And Dental
Admission/counseling Board-2020 And Principal Govt.
Dental College, Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital ,
Jaipur(Rajasthan)
3. Director, Department Of Medical And Health, Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9521/2020
Dr. Ajay Singh Son Of Ravindra Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Address- 151/46 Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-
302020.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary,
Department Of Medical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2. Director (Public Health) And Commissioner, (Food And
Safety), Department Of Medical And Health, Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
3. Principle Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chittorgarh
(Rajasthan)
4. Chairman, Neet Pg Medical And Dental Admission/
Counseling Board-2020, And Principal, Govt. Dental
College, Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
5. Principle, Sms Medical College, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9637/2020
Dr. Jogendra Vishvakarma S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Sutharo Ki Dhani, Mithiya Tala, Leelala Baytu-
344034, Barmer, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM)
(3 of 11) [CW-9113/2020]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. Director, Directorate Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chairman, Neet Pg Medical And Dental Admission/
Counseling Board- 2020, And Principal, Government
Dental College, Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Medical Council Of India, Through Its Secretary, Pocket
14, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mohit Balwada
Mr.Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Angad Mirdha - for respondent
MCI Mr.Harshal Tholia for Dr.VB Sharma, AAG (through video conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 03/09/2020 The issue involved in these writ petitions is common and as such, the writ petitions are decided by this common order.
The writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.9113/2020 has been filed by five petitioners seeking benefit as "in- service category" candidate for their admission in Post Graduate Medical Courses. These petitioners have also sought direction for relieving them and granting them benefit of study leave as well as other benefits as "in-service category" candidates.
The petitioners have pleaded in their writ petitions that they participated in the examination conducted by the National Board (Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM) (4 of 11) [CW-9113/2020] of Examination for NEET PG - 2020 and the petitioner Nos.1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur, 2 - Dr.Tarun Kumar, 4 - Dr.(Mrs.) Mudgal Sneha Raghunath & 5 - Dr.Ramveer Patel were working for more than five years in the State Government and they have requisite eligibility and experience also to participate in the process, as "in- service category" candidate. The petitioner No.3 - Dr. Madhu Shekhar Bissahas pleaded in his writ petition that he has rendered service in the urban area, thus he does not require any experience certificate.
The petitioners have pleaded that initially when the result of examination was declared on 30th January, 2020, they did not have the requisite cut-off marks and as such, they did not apply as "in-service category" candidates.
The petitioners have pleaded that the National Board of Examination revised the minimum qualifying marks on 14 th July, 2020 and as per the revised result, all the petitioners became entitled to participate in the counselling process as "in-service category" candidates.
The petitioners have pleaded that they have filled online registration forms for the NEET PG - 2020 seat allotments and they have also stated that they were in-service category candidates while filling the declaration form and copies of registration forms have been placed on record as Annexure - 5.
The petitioners have pleaded that the Admission Board released allotment of seats on 29 th July, 2020 where the petitioner Nos.1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur, 3 - Dr. Madhu Shekhar Bissahas & 4 - Dr. (Mrs.) Mudgal Sneha Raghunath were treated as "Non- service" category and only the petitioner Nos. 2 - Dr.Tarun Kumar (Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM) (5 of 11) [CW-9113/2020] & 5 - Dr.Ramveer Patel were treated as "In-service category"
candidates.
The petitioners have further pleaded that No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued to the petitioner No.1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur, petitioner No.2 - Dr.Tarun Kumar and petitioner No.3 - Dr. Madhu Shekhar Bissahas and the petitioner No.4 - Dr. (Mrs.) Mudgal Sneha Raghunath, who applied for NOC, was not issued the same and finally, after Mop-up round on 30 th July, 2020, the petitioners were allotted colleges, as per their merit and the respondents were bound to give admissions to the petitioners, as per allotment and they were required to treat the petitioners as "in-service category" candidates.
The prayer, which has been made in all the petitions for seeking declaration and entitlement of the petitioners of granting benefits as "in-service category" candidates and further, to treat the petitioners as "in-service category" candidates for all the benefits.
Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court for any change of category or for any bonus marks for rendering services in rural areas but they are confining their prayer to treat them as "in- service category" candidates, as they all are serving with the State Government.
Learned counsel submitted that it is only after revised result, the petitioners became entitled to be considered against "in- service category" candidates and as such, without disturbing the merit of any other candidate or admission made so far, the relief for granting study leave, may be considered by this Court. (Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM)
(6 of 11) [CW-9113/2020] Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners were not at fault at any point of time, as the respondents have not invited application form "in-service category" candidates after declaring revised result and as such, the petitioners immediately on revision of result, had approached the respondents for treating them as "in-service category" candidates.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the State Government has now amended Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and an exception has been added to Rule 112 where now the study leave is granted to the Medical Officer for 36 months for acquiring the degree of Post Graduate/super-speciality courses.
The Notification dated 31st July, 2020 is quoted hereunder for ready reference :
"GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN FINANCE DEPARTMENT (RULES DIVISION) No. F. l(3)FD/Rules/2002 Jaipur, dated : 31 July, 2020 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called The Rajasthan Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2020.
(2) They shall come into force with immediate effect.
2. Amendment of rule 112.- The existing exception of clause
(ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 shall be substituted by the following, namely:-(Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM)
(7 of 11) [CW-9113/2020]
"Exception:
Study leave to the Medical Officer/Medical Officer
(Dental)/Ayurved Medical Officer / Unani
MedicalOfficer/Homeopathy Medical Officer/ Teachers of Medical Education (Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Sr. Demonstrator MBBS/BDS Degree holder) shall be admissible for 36 months for acquiring degree of post graduation/super speciality course. Those MedicalOfficers/Medical Officers (Dental) Ayurved MedicalOfficers/Unani Medical Officers/Homeopathy MedicalOfficers/Teachers of Medical Education (Professor/Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor/Sr. Demonstrator MBBS/BDS Degree holder) who are already on study leave shall also be entitled for enhanced period of study, leave to the extent of remaining period of study leave."
Learned counsel Mr.Harshal Tholia, appearing for the respondent State, has submitted that no relief is required to be given to the petitioners, as they approached this Court after Mop- up round, conducted by them on 30th July, 2020.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are guilty of approaching the Court belatedly, as the entire exercise was carried out by the respondents and admissions were made finally, as per the time schedule, laid down by the Apex Court.
Learned counsel also submitted that if the petitioners had any grievance for non-consideration of their cases as "in-service"
candidates, they had to approach the Court immediately on publication of the list of eligible candidate before second round of counselling or before Mop-up round conducted on 30th July, 2020.
Learned counsel further submitted the petitioners ought to have applied as "in-service" candidates at first instance itself and even after revised result was published, the petitioners did not (Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM) (8 of 11) [CW-9113/2020] approach the respondents for issuance of proper certificate showing them to be "in-service" candidate and since, they have not completed the formalities, which were required, the petitioners cannot be granted benefits to treat them as "in-service"
candidates.
Learned counsel also submitted that this Court has already taken a view in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8065/2020 (Dr.Snehlata Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided vide order dated 29th July, 2020 that the issue with regard to treat the petitioners as "in-service" candidates cannot be entertained belatedly and the candidates should come to the Court immediately on cause of action accruing to them.
On the basis of said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that this Court should not interfere in the present matter.
Learned counsel, on the merits of the matter, submitted that the petitioners though might be handling service in the rural areas, however, since their admissions have been given as 'Non- service candidates", the benefits of study leave cannot be extended to them.
Learned counsel submitted that the purpose of study leave is to benefit the State Government after acquiring the higher education and the candidate, who is granted study leave, should be of help in future in the same department.
Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioners are now admitted in the different streams for PG Course, no benefit can accrue to the State Government in a particular department, in which the petitioners are presently working as Medical Officer and as such, they should not be given benefit.
(Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM)
(9 of 11) [CW-9113/2020]
Learned counsel Mr.Angad Mirdha, appearing for the
respondent MCI, submitted that the petitioners have already been granted admission, as per their merit and it is the State Government, who has to decide that in what manner, these petitioners are to be treated for the purpose of granting them study leave or keep them as "in-service" candidates.
Learned counsel submitted that merit of any candidate should not be disturbed and the admission, which have already been made, should also not be affected by any order, which this Court may pass after conclusion of the entire exercise of second round of counselling, Mop-up round and allotment of residuary seats.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
This Court finds that the petitioners are not claiming any benefit of seat as "in-service" candidate or allotment of bonus marks to them for the purpose of admission.
This Court further finds that the petitioners are working as Medical Officer in the service of the State Government and if the petitioners have been granted admission in PG courses, either as "non-service" candidate or as "in-service" candidate (Petitioner No2 - Dr.Tarun Kumar, petitioner No.5 - Dr.Ramveer Patel), the issue is with regard to relieving the petitioners for joining the said course.
This Court finds that the respondent - State Government should not create any obstruction in relieving the petitioners, if already not relieved to pursue the higher studies. There is legal impediment in this regard.
(Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM)
(10 of 11) [CW-9113/2020] This Court finds that the candidates/petitioners are also required to execute a bond before the Authorities that they will not leave the course and further, they will render their services after completing the course.
This Court finds that category of the petitioners, for the purpose of pursuing higher studies, will not make any difference and as such, the respondent - State Authorities are required to relieve the petitioners to join their respective courses.
The prayer of the petitioners to grant them study leave is required to be looked into as per the amendment, which the State Government itself has made on 31st July, 2020. The exception, which has been added to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, makes it very clear that those Medical Officers, who are working in the State Government, including the Medical Officer (Dental), Ayurved Medical Officer, Unani Medical Officer, Homeopathy Medical Officer, Teachers of Medical Education, are entitled for 36 months' study leave for doing their PG/super-speciality courses.
This Court finds that if the petitioners have been rendering their services in the State Government as Medical Officer, the State Authorities are required to consider them entitled for the grant of study leave, as per the amendment, which itself has been made by the State Government.
This Court further finds that even if the petitioners are treated as "non-service category" candidates, once they are working in the State Government, entitlement emanates from the amendment, which has been inserted by the State Government.
This Court, considering the amendment brought into Rajasthan Service Rules and allotment of seats to the petitioners, either in "non-service category" or "in-service category", finds that (Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM) (11 of 11) [CW-9113/2020] the petitioners are required to be relieved, if they have already not been relieved from their respective place of posting, enabling them to join the respective courses.
This Court also finds that the respondents are always at liberty to collect the relevant information about working of the petitioners as "in-service" candidates and they may be given adequate time to produce the relevant details from the competent authority about their working in the rural areas and the same can be submitted by them.
This Court further holds that the petitioners are entitled for grant of study leave, as per the exception added to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to make compliance of this order expeditiously, as the matter pertains to admission in PG courses.
A copy of this order be separately placed in each file.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Preeti Asopa (Downloaded on 03/09/2020 at 09:10:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)