Gauhati High Court
L. Ibohalbi Singh And Ors. vs Director Of Health Services And Ors. on 14 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)GLT970
Author: T. Nandakumar Singh
Bench: T. Nandakumar Singh
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. The writ petitioners are the Male Health Workers who have successfully completed the training course for the Male Health Worker's Course of one year in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal which is a Manipur Government Institute. The private respondents 3 to 164 are also the Male Health Workers who have successfully completed the training course for the Male Health Workers' Course of 3 (three) months in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal, i.e. the same training institute from where the writ petitioners have undergone the training in the Male Health Workers' Course of one year. It is also an undeniable fact that as per the policy of the State Government as well as the Central Government, the State Government (Health Department) sent Male Health Workers for in service orientation training course for the period changed from time to time, i.e. for a period of 3 months or for a period of 12 months or for a period of one year, in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal. The Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) Scheme is a 100% Centrally Sponsored Scheme.
2. Next higher promotional post of the Male Health Worker is the Male Health Supervisor. The Governor of Manipur in Exercise of his powers Conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India makes the rules called "the Medical Department, Manipur (Male Health Supervisor and Male Health Worker) Recruitment Rules, 1993" vide orders being No. 1/18/93-RR/DP, Imphal, the 24th November, 1993, which have been published in the Manipur Gazette No. 42, Imphal, Wednesday, February 16, 1994 (Magha 27, 1915). According to the said recruitment rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, the posts of Male Health supervisors are to be filled up by promotion from Male Health Workers failing which by direct recruitment. The said Recruitment Rules, 1993 is still in force. According to the said Recruitment Rules, 1993, the Male Health Workers who are matriculate/HSLC or its equivalent from a recognized University/Board/Institute having trained in Male Health Workers' course from a recognized institute and having 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade in any public health programme are eligible for promotion to the Male Health Supervisor. In the said Recruitment Rules, 1993, the period of training to be undergone by the Male Health Workers in a recognized institute for making himself eligible for promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor is not mentioned. The essential requirements to be fulfilled by the Male Health Workers for promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor are mentioned in column No. 11 of the Manipur Public Service Commission Form No. 3 annexed to the said Recruitment Rules, 1993 and for easy reference, requirements mentioned in the column No. 11 are quoted hereunder:
PROMOTION Male Health Workers who are Matriculate/HSLC or its equivalent from a recognized institute having trained in Male Health Workers Course from a recognized institute and having 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade in any Public Health Programme.
3. The core question in the present writ petition is the interpretation of the essential requirements to be fulfilled by the Male Health Workers for promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisors maintained in column no. 11 which have been quoted above in entirety inasmuch as both the writ petitioners and the private respondents are interpreting the period of training course to be completed by the Male Health Workers in a recognized institute, even if the period of course to be completed by the Male Health Workers in a recognized institute is not maintained in the column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules. 1993. in such a manner that. according to the writ petitioners the period of the training course would be one year: but according to the private respondents, the period of training course would also be 3 (three) months.
4. The writ petitioners by interpreting the column No. 11 of the said Recruitment Rules, 1993 in such a manner that only the Male Health Workers who are Matriculate/HSLC or its equivalent from a recognized institute having trained in Male Health Workers' course for one year from a recognized institute and having 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade in any Public Health Programme are eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor, filed the present writ petition for the reliefs that-
1)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus compelling the respondents 1 and 2 not to consider the claims and cases of those Male Health Workers who have not successfully completed the basic training course for one year;
2)to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or prohibition to keep the respondents 1 and 2 within their statutory jurisdiction and also to prevent them from committing any error of law on the fact of the record by quashing any unjust and irrelevant orders passed by them, and
3)to issue an interim order directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to hold any DPC for promotion to the higher post of Male Health Supervisor during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. It is also a fact that after the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisors, 1993 came into effect with effect from the date of its publication in the Manipur Gazette, i.e. on 16.2.1994, the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Manipur issued orders being No. G(21)/77-DHS (Pt-I), Imphal the 20th March, 1999 in pursuance of the Secretariat: Health Department, Manipur letter No. 17.12.92-M dated 24.2.1999 and on the recommendation of the DPC held on 30.11.99 for promoting 30 (thirty) Male Health Workers who are matriculate Male Health workers and have udnergone training course for 3 (three) months, to the posts of Male Health Supervisors. Again, the Director of Health Services issued orders being No. G(21)/77-HS/Pt-I, Imphal the 26th may, 1999 in pursuance of the Secretariat: Health Deptt. Manipur letter No. 17/12/92-M, Imphal, the 17th May, 1999 and on the recommendation of the DPC held on 5.4.1999 for promoting 6(six) Male Health Workers who are matriculate and had undergone Male Health Workers' training course for a period of 3 (three) months to the Male Health Supervisors. From the past practices and precedents, it is clear that the respondents 1 and 2 had issued the orders for promoting the Male Health Workers who have completed the Male Health Workers' Training Course of 3 (three) months to the post of Male Health Supervisors by interpreting column No. 11 of the said Recruitment Rules, for the post of Male Health Supervisors, 1993 in such a manner that the training course mentioned in column no. 11 would also include the Male Health Training Course for 3 (three) months.
6. The Male Health Workers in the Health Department, Govt. of Manipur can be classified into 4 (four) categories, as-
1) Male Health Workers who are not either Matriculate/HSLC or its equivalent or trained in the MHWS course for one year;
2)Male Health Workers who are Matriculate or/equivalent or above and undergone 3(three) months/12 weeks in-service orientation training of Male Health Workers with 5 (five) years regular service in the grade;
3)Male Health Workers who are matriculate or equivalent or above and who have successfully completed Male Health workers' Training Course of one year with 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade; and
4)Male Health Workers who are Matriculate/equivalent or above and who are trained in Male Health Workers' Training Course of one year but have not completed 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade.
The writ petitioners belong to the 3rd category of Male Health Workers; whereas the private respondents belong to the 2nd category of Male Health Workers.
7. As per the past practices discussed above, both the Male Health Workers of second category and the third category were taken to be eligible under the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisors, 1993 for appointment by promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisors. The private respondents also filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the policy of the State Govt. and the Central Government, duration of the Male Health Workers' Training Course had been fixed from time to time and after fixing the duration of the Male Health Workers' Training Course, the Govt. of Manipur sent Male Health Workers for training. The private respondents were sent for undergoing Male Health Workers' Training Course for 3 (three) months in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal. As such the private respondents in compliance with the orders of the competent authority of the Govt. of Manipur for undergoing Male Health Workers' Training Course for 3 (three) months in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal had successfully completed the training course for 3(three) months and it is also the case of the private respondents in their counter affidavit that they never opted for undergoing Male Health Workers' training course for 3 months, but as per the policy decision of the Govt. of Manipur as well as the Central Government for fixing the duration of the Male Health Workers' training course for 3 months, they had completed 3 month's training course. In the case of the writ petitioners, after the duration of the Male Health Workers' training course had been changed to one year, they had been sent for the Male Health Workers' Course. It would be clearly spelt out from the record that after the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 came into effect with effect from 16.2.1994, the Govt. of Manipur had earlier sent Male Health Workers for the Male Health Workers' Course for 3 (three) months in the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal and, later on the Male Health Workers were sent for Male Health Workers Course for one year in the same training centre, i.e. the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal, and also the Govt. of Manipur promoted the Male Health Workers who are matriculate having 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade and had successfully completed the Male Health Workers' Course for 3 (three) months to the Male Health Supervisor after the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 came into force.
8. Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners by interpreting the duration of the Male Health Workers' training course as one year, even if it is not so mentioned in column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisors, 1993, strenuously submits that the claims for promotion by the private respondents who had undergone the Male Health Workers' Course for 3 months is contrary to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisors, 1993 and also that the private respondents are not qualified for promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor. For such submission, he placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in (1) ICAR and Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan and Ors. ;
(2) State of Punjab and Ors. v. Tara Singh .
9. From perusal of the decision of the Apex Court in ICAR and Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan (supra) and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Tara Singh (supra), it is clear that unqualified candidates cannot claim for appointment merely on the basis of the fundamental rights available under the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But the core question in the present writ petition is that whether this Court can accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that the private respondents are not eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisors under the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993. This court is not disputing the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in ICAR and Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan (supra) and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Tara Singh (supra). Mr. Bimol Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Dharam Bin that experience cannot be a substitute for educational qualification prescribed in the statutory rules. This court is also accepting the submissions of Mr. A. Bimol Singh, the learned Counsel for he petitioners.
10. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Makhija Construction & Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. submits that the precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case inasmuch as in the earlier precedents discussed above the Male Health Workers who are Matriculate having 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade and successfully completed Male Health Workers' Training Course for 3 (Three) months from the Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Imphal, had been appointed by promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisors after the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 came into force and as such there is no earthly reason for not following the earlier precedents in the case of the private respondents also in the matter of promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor under the said Recruitment Rules for the posts of Male Health Supervisor 1993. Para-19 of the SCC in Makhija Construction & Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Indore Dev. Authority and Ors. (supra) reads as follows:
19. The counsel for Jagriti has referred us to several decisions viz. Gopal Upadhyaya v. Union of India 1986 Supp SCC 501, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat , Deena v. Union of India and Krishena Kumar v. Union of India . None of the decisions are apposite. They refer to the principle of precedent which is distinct from the principle of res judicata. A precedent operates to bind in a similar situations in a distinct case. Res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be an end to litigation.
11. This court is also of the considered view that the submissions of Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, the learned Counsel for the private respondents has force of law in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents also submits that it is not the fault of the private respondents for not completing Male Health Workers' Course for one year, but it is the fault of the State Government for not sending the private respondents for Male Health Workers' Course for one year. But by sending them to the Male Health Workers' training course for 3 (three) months the private respondents should not be suffered for not completing Male Health Worker's training course for one year, according to Mr. Tarunkumar Singh, the learned Counsel and for such submissions he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Amrik Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. of the SCC in Amrik Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (supra) reads as follows:
9. Let us assume for a moment that the State Government had not reported to the Central Government and that the consultation with the Union Public Service Commission had not been made by the Central Government. Let us further assume that, in a strict view, that was needed. Even so, the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi should have formally told the Home Ministry about the officiation beyond three months by Ahluwalia in a cadre post. This was not done. The real line of distinction between a State and the Union of India might well be blurred a little when it is a Union Territory. Moreover, there is the circumstance that the entire service was in the melting pot for a few years because the All India Services were being switched from Himachal Pradesh and Delhi into all the Union Territories. Even more; since uncertainty prevailed while the question of a part of Punjab being tacked on to Himachal Pradesh came to engage the Administration. Admidst these fluctuating factors, the solecism committed by the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh in not having reported to the Central Government about continuing Ahluwalia, beyond 3 months, in a cadre post, was a venial sin for which the candidate was free from blame. Secondly, the argument, based on Sahney, a senior to Ahluwalia, being in an ex-cadre post and therefore, Anluwalia's service during that period not being regular, also cannot be exaggerated out of proportion. Technically, the C.B.I. posts are ex-cadre posts, but it is a Central Government Department and nothing is suggested that there was something suspicious in Sahney being kept in the C.B.I. to facilitate ahluwalia's continuance in a Cadre post. Everything in this case is straightforward and, therefore, if there was any administrative lapse. Ahluwalia could not be Victimized. In-deed, an unwitting hardship inflicted on a member of the Service under such circumstances can be relieved against by exercise of the residuary power of Central Government under Rule 3 extracted above. They passed the order (An-nexure 'X') which we reproduce:
Annexure'X' No. 24/16/71-Pers. II (IPS) Government of In-dia/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/ Grih Mantralaya.
Memorandum S/Shri P.C. Sahney, K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia were appointed from the Indian Po-lice Service by promotion from the State Police Service on January 30, 1971 and allocated to the Himachal Pradesh Cadre of Service. 2. Prior to their appointment to the Indian Police Service, these officers were holding the following posts.
* * * * * In accordance with Regulation 8 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the Select List officers are to be appointed to the cadre post in the order in which their names appear in the Select List. As such in cases where a senior select list officer was not holding a cadre post, the officiation in a cadre post of a junior officer in the Select List was not approved by the Central Government because the appointment of Junior Select List officer to a cadre post was violative of the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Promotion Regulations.
* * * * * Accordingly, it was decided that the rules may be relaxed to count the period of officiation against ex-cadre posts so as to give benefit of the service rendered by the junior officers in the cadre post for the purpose of seniority. Applying the ratio of the case of U.T. Cadre, the Government of India has come to the conclusion that the appointment of Shri P.C. Sahney in the C.B.I. on deputation basis from December 7, 1964 to October 6, 1969 was made by the Central Government in public interest since Shri Sahney belonged to the U.T. Cadre which was managed by the Central Government. It can, therefore, be said that the question of misuse of provisions of rules and regulations by the State Government in this case does not a rise. The certificates that but for his appointment to ex-cadre post in the C.B.I., Shri Sahney would have continued against a cadre post, was to be issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the fault, if any, lies with the Central Government and not with any State Government. It has, therefore, been tentatively decided to count the ex-cadre officiations of Shri P.C. Sahney from December 7, 1964 to October 6, 1969 for the purpose of seniority in relaxation of the provisions of the I.P.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
* * * * * In view of the counting of ex-cadre officiation of Shri P.C. Sahney for the period December 7, 1964 to October 6, 1969, the Cadre officiation of S/Shri K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia prior to October 13, 1969 will not be violative of the provisions of Regulation 8 of I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. It is, therefore, prepared to count the entire cadre officiation of S/Shri K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia for the purpose of their seniority. Accordingly, the crucial date in respect of S/Shri K. S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia shall be March 28, 1965 and November 11, 1965, respectively.
* * * * * Sd/- A. Jayaraman Under Secretary to the Government of India After full and second consideration, the Central Government passed Annexure 'Y' dated December 1, 1978, whereby Ahluwalia was given the benefit of 1961 as the year of the allotment. The period of officiation of Ahluwalia between August 1, 1968 and October 19, 1969 was approved by the Central Government after consultation with the U.P.S.C. This retrospectively cured the infirmity that existed in Ahluwalia's officiation, beyond 3 months or 6 months, in a cadre post without consultation with the U.P.S.C. The contravention of Regulation 8 was, thus, relieved against.
12. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel for the private respondents by relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. N.Y. Apte and Ors. submits that equation of the training courses in the Male Health Workers' training prescribed from time to time under the policy decision of the Manipur Government as well as the Central Government would be determined by the State Government for the purpose of promoting its employees, i.e. the Male Health Workers, of the Health Department, Govt. of Manipur to the next higher post of Male Health Supervisor under the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 framed by the Governor of Manipur in exercise of his powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
13. Both the parties, i.e. the writ petitioners and the private respondents, by referring to the different correspondences between the Union of India and the State of Manipur and also between the Officers of the Central Government and the concerned Officers of the Govt. of Manipur submit that duration of Male Health Workers Course should be one year, according to the writ petitioners and it should be 3 (three) months, according to the private respondents. This court is of the considered view that it would be the rule making authority, i.e. the Govt. of Manipur, to decide the duration of the Male Health Workers' training course mentioned in column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993.
14. It is settled principle of law that validity of the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall continue to operate until replaced or repealed by the validly framed new rules. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India through the Govt. of Pondicherry and Anr. v. V. Ramakrishan and Ors. . Since the Recruitment rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 is still valid, this Court is to see as to how the column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 is to be construed or interpreted.
15. It is fairly well settled principles of interpretation of rules that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The co must, as far as possible, adopted construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The court cannot add the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there. Para 13 of the SCC in Dadi Jaganndham v. Jammulu Ramulu and Ors. reads as follows:
13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The court cannot add the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there.
16. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel for the private respondents also submits that while interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. For such submission, he presses the decision of the Apex Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. in service. By referring to the ratio laid down in Padma Sundara Rao and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. (supra), Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, the learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that this Court while construing the meaning of Male Health Workers' Course from a recognized institution mentioned in column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993, the court may only see what had been stated as the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it Paras-12 and 14 of the SCC in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. (Supra) reads as follows:
12. The rival pleas regarding rewriting of statute and casus omissus need careful consideration. It is well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. "Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid", Judge Learned Hand said, "but words must be construed with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them". (See Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547) The view was reiterated in Union of India v. Filip Tiago de Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama .
14. While interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. [See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. ] The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah case. In Nanjudaiah case the period was further stretched to have the time period run from date of service of the High Court's order. Such a view cannot be reconciled with the language of Section 6(1). If the view is accepted it would mean that a case can be covered by not only cause (i) and/or Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), but also by a non-prescribed period. Same can never be the legislative intent.
17. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that a beneficial provision of a legislature must be liberally construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it. According to him such being the accepted principle for interpretation of the statute/rule, column No. 11 of the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 should be construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose of promoting the Male Health Workers who are Matriculate/HSLC or its equivalent from a recognized institute having trained in Male Health Workers' training course from a recognized institute and having 5 (five) years' regular service in the grade to any public health programme and not to fustrate it by interpreting in such a manner to deny the said benefit of promotion to the private respondents. Paras-23, 24, 25 and 26 of the SCC in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors. read as follows:
23. It is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same should be read as a whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and words by words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary when there is ambiguity, obscurity, or inconsistency therein and not otherwise. An effort must be made to give effect to all parts of the statute and unless absolutely necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered surplus age or redundant.
24. True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what it provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law.
25. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute.
26. It is also well settled that a beneficent provision of legislature must be liberally construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it.
18. Having regards to the decisions of the Apex Court regarding the interpretation of the statutes, and also taking into consideration of the earlier precedents for promoting the Male Health Workers who are Matriculate/HSLC or its equivalent and who have completed Male Health Workers' Course for 3 (three) months from a recognized institute after the enforcement of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor,. 1993 to the Male Health Supervisors, this Court is of the considered view that the submissions of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that the words "the Male Health Workers' Course from a recognized institute" mentioned in column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 should be read as "Male Health Workers' Course for a period of 1 (one) year from a recognized institute" cannot be accepted.
For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs.