Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Gautam Chandra Koshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
WRIT PETITION No. 23856 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DR. SHWETA SOORAUTHIYA D/O SHRI
YOGENDRA PRASAD SOORAUTHIYA, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
DEMONSTRATOR PHYSIOLOGY (DOCTOR) IN
GOVT. AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGE
SHAHDOL, R/O FLAT NO. 103, G-1 BUILDING,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, SHAHDOL
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VALLBH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION,
SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GOVT. AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGE
SHAHDOL, THROUGH ITS DEAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT SHAHDOL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 11/21/2022
12:58:57 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS)
WRIT PETITION No. 22892 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. DR. NARENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/O
INDRA SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCCUPATION: MEDICAL OFFICER,
R/O KUNJ VIHAR COLONY, 60 FEET ROAD,
GOLE KA MADIR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DR. UMESH KUMAR MISHRA S/O MR. RAM
KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEDICAL OFFICER, R/O
Q.NO. 5, TYPE VA, BMC CAMPUS,
BUNDELKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE,
SHIVAJI WARD, SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DR. SHEETAL SONI W/O VIVEK SONI, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
DEMONSTRATOR R/O WARD NO. 3,
SOHAGPUR, NEAR RAMJANKI MANDIR,
SOHAGPUR, SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH RADHE LAL GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE. DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MEDICAL EDUCATION 5TH FLOOR,
SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 11/21/2022
12:58:57 PM
3
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS COMMISSIONER / COUNSELLING
AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
EDUCATION, 4TH FLOOR, SATPURA
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS)
WRIT PETITION No. 22983 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DR. GAUTAM CHANDRA KOSHI S/O SHRI P.K.
CHANDRA KOSHI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DEMONSTRATOR PATHOLOGY
(DOCTOR) IN S.S. MEDICAL COLLEGE, REWA,
R/O F-16/4, NEW DOCTORS COLONY, ARJUN
NAGAR, REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION,
SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. S.S. MEDICAL COLLEGE REWA, THROUGH
IS DEAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 11/21/2022
12:58:57 PM
4
WRIT PETITION No. 24281 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. DR. PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI P.D.
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DEMONSTRATOR
PHYSIOLOGY (DOCTOR) IN GOVT.
AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGE
VIDISHA, R/O 8/502 A.B.V.G.M.C. VIDISHA
COLLEGE CAMPUS, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DR. SAURABH KUMAR SINGH PARIHAR S/O
SHRI BIRJMOHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CAUSALITY
MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) IN BIRSA
MUNDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, SHAHDOL,
R/O G-1 BLOCK FLAT COLLEGE, SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DR. KRISHNA DEEP SAHU S/O SHRI BHOLE
SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CAUSALITY MEDICAL
OFFICER (DOCTOR) IN BUNDELKHAND
MEDICAL COLLEGE SAGAR R/O H.NO. 863
DOCTOR SHUKLA GALI, SHASTRI WARD
SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DR. ANIL KUMAR NAGAR S/O SHRI
RAGHUNATH PRASAD NAGAR, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CAUSALITY MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR)
IN GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE DATIA R/O
13/47. THANDI SADAK DATIA, NEAR SBI
ATM, ASTHA MEDICAL STORE, DISTRICT
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DR. AMARDEEP ARYA S/O SHRI BANSHI
LAL ARYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DEMONSTRATOR (DOCTOR)
IN BUNDELKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE
SAGAR R/O H.NO. 110, GIRDHARIPURAM
COLONY, NEAR AGAM PETROL PUMP, TILI
WARD, SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 11/21/2022
12:58:57 PM
5
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SATPUDA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BAHWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GOVT. AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGE
VIDISHA, THROUGH ITS DEAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BIRSA MUNDA MEDICAL COLLEGE
SHAHDOL, THROUGH ITS DEAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BUNDELKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE
SAGAR, THROUGH ITS DEAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE DATIA
THROUGH ITS DEAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SMT. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3)
.................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 10.11.2022
Pronounced on : 18.11.2022
.................................................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 11/21/2022
12:58:57 PM
6
These petitions having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Mishra passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petitions have been filed challenging the validity and constitutionality of Rule 14 (7) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (for short "the Rules of 2018") by which the petitioners are not being permitted to participate in the counseling process for NEET-PG Examination on the ground of pre-condition of study leave, which is not a condition precedent for admission of other categories of in-service doctors namely the Medical Officers working with the Department of Health Services. In W.P. No.23856 of 2022, the petitioner is Demonstrator. In W.P. No.22892 of 2022, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the Medical Officers and petitioner No.3 is a Demonstrator. In W.P. No.22983 of 2022, the petitioner is a Demonstrator. In W.P. No.24281 of 2022, the petitioner No.1 and 5 is Demonstrators and the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are Causality Medical Officers. They are working under the Medical Education Department.
2. Since the facts and question of law involved in all these petitions are identical, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts as stated in Writ Petition No.22892 of 2022 are taken into consideration.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are all in-service doctors. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are the Medical Officers and petitioner No.3 is a Demonstrator, working under the Medical Education Department. They appeared in the NEET-PG Examination which was held on 22.05.2022 and qualified the same with the marks they required for appearing in counseling and admission process of the PG Medical Courses in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They have rendered more than one year's service with the Department of Health as regular employees. Their respective appointment orders along with the NOC Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 7 of the employer are filed as Annexure P-3, P-4 and P-5 collectively. They are all in-service candidates who have appeared and passed NEET PG Examination, 2022. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, the admissions to the Medical and Dental courses (both for UG and PG) are being governed by Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental College Rules, 2018 which have undergone several amendments from time to time. The last amendment was made on 05.10.2021 to the effect that all Doctors and Medical Officers who were serving the State of Madhya Pradesh as regular/contractual employees falling under in-service category of the doctors would be entitled to the said benefits.
4. On earlier occasion, a writ petition was filed being W.P. No.16249 of 2022 (Dr. Diwakar Patel vs. State of M.P. and others), which was heard analogously with other writ petitions and decided by a common order dated 22.09.2022 wherein the challenge was made to the implementation of subsequent amendment after initiation of process of examination by the respondents and this Court has held that the subsequent amendment cannot be made applicable to the present examination as the amendment has been introduced after the initiation of selection process. Therefore, direction was issued to the respondents to redo the entire list in accordance with the Rules of 2018 (5th October 2021 Amendment).
5. A departmental order dated 22.02.2021 has been issued, which is made applicable to the Doctors, Tutors, Demonstrators by which dispensation of study leave for Government Medical Officers working with the Directorate of Medical Education is being provided wherein the candidate is to serve for a minimum period of 5 years to be considered eligible for study leave. The case of the petitioners is that all the Doctors/Medical Officers who are falling under the category of in-service candidate are entitled to the benefit of 30% reservation as per the notification issued by the State Government who are serving the State as regular/contractual employees. There is no distinction between the doctors working as in-service category under the Director of Medical Education, under Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 8 the Directorate of Health Services or even as a contractual employee under the National Health Mission. The admission rule does not provide any distinction between the three categories. Therefore, imposition of a condition in terms of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 whereby the Medical Officers working with Directorate of Medical Education has to serve an institution for five years, is not only discriminatory, but also against the rules. By introduction of such a condition, the respondents are creating a class within the class. Therefore, the constitutional validity of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 is put to challenge herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents in their reply have produced an order dated 22.02.2021 whereby the amendment in Rule 12(1)(vi) has been inserted, which says that the entire period of service is 36 months and the candidate is entitled for study leave on completion of 5 years of service and on completion of study leave, 5 years should be remaining from the date of superannuation and it is stated to be a mandatory condition. On one hand, Rule 12(1)(vi) has been implemented and on the other hand the authorities are asking for resignation, which has been reflected from the documents placed before this Court. If a Medical Officer has resigned from the department, it is virtually impossible for him to serve the department again for a period of 5 years. Therefore, the amended Rule 12(1)(6) itself is contrary. That after the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.16249 of 2022, the respondent authorities have granted NOC to the candidates on 01.10.2022 which are filed along with the writ petition.
7. In the year 2019, the State Government in terms of the provisions of Regulation 9 under the MCI PG Regulations, issued a public notice on 22.2.2019 for grant of incentive marks upto 30% to all those in-service category candidates/doctors who had served in remote, difficult and rural areas applying a uniform parameter. By introduction of the aforesaid additional provision, none of the in-service candidates are being affected. Therefore, no class within the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 9 class was created by introduction of the policy granting incentive marks. But by virtue of amended notification dated 05.10.2021, a discriminatory provision has been inserted vide Rule 14(7) by which all the Demonstrators, Tutors, Medical Officers working with the Department of Medical Education have been made ineligible for participating in admission and counseling process against the 30% in-service compartment who does not possess the requisite 5 years experience for grant of study leave. On the contrary, the Medical Officers/Doctors working in the Department of Health Services on regular/contractual basis are eligible for the benefit of 30% compartment/reservation without any nexus with the eligibility for study leave. This makes a hostile discrimination between the same set of employees who are serving the Medical Department one under the Directorate of Medical Education and other under the Department of Health Services. Thus, the introduction of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 is not only violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also discriminatory in nature. The aforesaid aspects came to the knowledge of the petitioners when the latest merit list was issued on 04.10.2022 wherein the name of the petitioners were mentioned but they are treated as not being eligible for 30% reserved compartment as in-service candidates (Annexure P-10).
8. It is argued that the aforesaid list has been prepared in view of the final judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Diwakar Patel (supra) wherein the authorities were directed to redo the entire list. In pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court, although the petitioners have become entitled to participate as in-service candidates but the rider in terms of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 has made the petitioners ineligible for participation under the 30% reservation compartment of in-service category candidates. It is argued that there cannot be any distinction between the same set of employees working under the same department in different capacity. The definition of in- service candidates in terms of Rules of 2018 is defined under Section 2(dha). A Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 10 perusal of the aforesaid definition does not reflect any other condition except rendering services as in-service candidates.
9. It is argued that similar provisions were subjected to challenge before this Court in the case of Dr. Surjeet Kumar Shukla and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in Writ Petition No.24093 of 2021 and in the case of Dr. Sumit Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in Writ Petition No.16869 of 2022, wherein, the interim relief has been granted to all the in-service doctors identically situated to participate in counseling as in-service candidates. By way of interim relief in the present case, the petitioners have already been extended the aforesaid benefits vide order dated 13.10.2022. It is argued that by imposition of such a condition, virtually the respondents have divided a homogeneous class and have created a class within the class. The same is not permissible. Therefore, the present petition is being filed challenging the constitutional validity. It is argued that during the pendency of the writ petition, an order has been passed by the authorities dated 07.11.2022 pointing out that in terms of Rule 12(1)(vi) of the Rules of 2018 as they have not rendered services of 5 years, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of study leave.
10. It is argued that in pursuance to the interim order granted by this Court, they were permitted to participate in the counseling and they have been allotted seats. Therefore, the entire process of selection is at advanced stage. Now throwing out the petitioners by virtue of non compliance of Section 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 is per se illegal. Therefore, they have prayed for quashment of the impugned order as well as declaring the relevant provisions of Section 14(7) as unconstitutional and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State by filing reply has denied all the averments. The initial objection with respect to the maintainability of the petition is being taken pointing out the fact that the petitioners herein are all those candidates who have filed writ petition earlier being Writ Petition No.16249 of 2022, which was decided by this Court on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 11 22.09.2022 along with other writ petitions. The petitioners have never chosen to challenge the validity of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018. Once a challenge to the amendment was made in the earlier round of litigation, filing of second writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 14(7), is against the Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. It is argued that at the time of challenge to the amendment in Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, dated 26.07.2022, the petitioners were aware of Rule 14(7). Despite the same they have chosen not to challenge the same. They have raised their objections only when the counseling has started. The counseling is already underway and the allotment of second round of counseling is published on 04.11.2022. Only the mop up round remains for counseling. Therefore, she has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on this ground alone. It is submitted that the constitutional validity of a particular rule cannot be put to challenge merely on personal inconveniences or hardships being faced by a candidate. The constitutional validity can only be challenged if there is any contravention of any fundamental right specified in Part-III of the Constitution or contravention of any mandatory provision of the Constitution as has been held in Special Reference No.01 of 1964 reported in AIR 1965 SC 745 and in the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. and Khayerbari Tea Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Assam and others reported in AIR 1961 SCC 232. None of the grounds are available to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 14(7), therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
12. It is further contended that there are two classes of Medical Officers working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. One under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare who are mostly working in the rural areas and some District Hospitals in non-rural area dealing regularly in day and day out patients and on the contrary the Demonstrators, Tutors like petitioners are appointed under the Directorate of Medical Education by a different recruitment process under the different set of rules by Government Autonomous Medical Colleges of the State and are engaged in teaching work. There are no posts of Tutors and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 12 Demonstrators in Public Health Department. There is a vast difference in the mode of recruitment, appointing authority, place of working, the nature of work etc. in these two categories of Medical Officers. The post of Tutors and Demonstrators exists only in Medical Colleges of the State and they are being recruited by autonomous committee of the Medical College, which is headed by the Divisional Commissioner against the vacancies on the basis of interviews. They work in non-clinical Department of Medical Colleges and are engaged in teaching work. On the other hand, the Medical Officers working under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare are engaged through Public Service Commission Recruitment process. They are being governed by the different set of rules. The services of Demonstrators, Tutors and Medical Officers working under the Directorate of Medical Education are governed by the rules framed under the Rules of 2018 wherein it is specifically provided for grant of study leave on completion of 5 years of service. The Medical Officers like the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of the appointment orders which provide that the eligibility of grant of study leave would be governed by Rule 12 of the Rules of 2018.
13. Rule 12(1)(vi) specifically provides that an officer has to complete 5 years of service to be eligible for grant of study leave. On the contrary, the Medical Officers working under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare are not governed by the Rules of 2018. The rules for eligibility to appear as in- service candidates are laid down in the policy framed by the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare dated 28.02.2019, which provides that the Medical Officer shall be entitled for two sponsorships (NOC) from the employer on completion of three years of service. It is contended that as the mode of appointment/recruitment of two classes of Medical Officers and the rules governing their service conditions and place of working and duties assigned to them are entirely different, therefore, it cannot be said that the Medical Officers working in the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare and that of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 13 Medical Education form a homogenous class. They do not carry equal status as they are being governed by the different set of rules. The petitioners who are working under the Medical Education Department cannot claim parity with the Medical Officers working under the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. It is contended that Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 which is a subject matter of the petition does not debar the petitioners from participating in the PG courses. It only says that they are being governed by different set of rules, therefore, they are required to take the study leave certificate from the concerning institution in which they are working and thereafter they will be entitled for grant of 30% reservation compartment as in-service candidates. The rules governing the services of the petitioners are known as Madhya Pradesh Chiktisa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018. The definition clause under Rule 2(dha) clearly speaks of taking NOC from the department and registering on the portal. The NOCs which is granted are for the purposes of participating in counseling in pursuance to the various orders passed by this Court, but the same does not create any right for allotment of any seat. As the matter was pending consideration before this Court, therefore, they were permitted for counseling in terms of the orders passed by this Court but they are required to fulfill the terms and conditions as incorporated under Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 and the rules governing their services. They are working under the autonomous institutions which are having their own rules and regulations.
14. It is not a case where the petitioners are debarred from participating. If they are not entitled for participating as in-service candidates or found not entitled for extension of benefit of 30% reservation compartment as in-service candidates, they are free to participate under the open category. Thus, they are not being precluded from participating in the NEET PG Examination, 2022 but they cannot be extended the benefit of 30% reservation compartment as in- service category candidates. In absence of fulfillment of the terms and conditions of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 and Rule 12(1)(vi) of the amended Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 14 Rules governing their services, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani reported in 2003 (7) SCC 83 and in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 538 in support of her arguments.
15. By way of additional return, it is contended that Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1977 provides that the employee has to complete 5 years of service in order to be eligible for grant of study leave. The basic object of providing reservation to in-service candidates as an incentive to run Government Hospitals and service in public, is to encourage them and to offer their services or to expertise to the same, therefore, they have been given relaxation by permitting them study leave on completion of three years of services. Therefore, virtually there is no discrimination being done with the Demonstrators, Tutors and Medical Officers working under the DME and those working under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare. In such circumstances, Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 cannot be held to be unconstitutional. As the petitioners are governed by the different set of rules which require minimum completion of 5 years of services to enable them to be entitled for grant of study leave, in absence of fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions, they can be treated as in-service candidates but cannot be extended the benefits of 30% reservation compartment of in-service category candidates. Hence, she has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
17. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 14(7) of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 and Rule 12(1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Rules of 2018 for declaring the same to be unconstitutional as the petitioners who are doctors rendering their services under the DME, on one hand are being treated to be in-service candidates but are not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 15 being extended the benefit of 30% reserved compartment as in-service candidates, therefore, they are being discriminated from doctors who are rendering their services in the Health Department and Hospitals. It is their case that the question regarding they being in-service candidates and are entitled for benefit of reservation of 30% compartment was considered by this Court in the case of Dr. Diwakar Patel (supra). The said writ petition was heard analogously with other writ petitions and vide order 22.09.2022 the doctors who are rendering their services under the Directorate of Medical Education were treated to be in-service candidates as they fall within the definition of "in-service candidates" as mentioned in section 2(dha) of Rules of 2018. The other question was with respect to application of the amended provisions which were introduced subsequently after initiation of the process of admission. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the amended provisions will not be applicable to the current admission process. By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, they were permitted to participate in the counseling as in-service candidates. They have been allotted seats after counseling. Therefore, it was clear that the Demonstrators, Tutors and Medical Officers working under the Directorate of Medical Education were declared to be in-service candidates by the aforesaid judgment but by virtue of insertion of Rule 14(7), they have been discriminated on the ground that they are required to obtain a study leave certificate from their employer who would make them eligible for benefit of 30% reservation compartment. The doctors working under the Department of Health Services are treated to be in-service candidates and eligible for benefit of 30% compartment reservation without there being any nexus to the eligibility of study leave. It is argued that all the doctors either working under the Medical Education Department or under the Health Department are virtually having the same qualifications. Therefore, discriminating them on the basis of Rule 14 imposing a condition of obtaining study leave certificate is inappropriate.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 1618. It is argued that the definition of in-service candidates does not have any iota of study leave. On the contrary, the in-service candidate includes all the doctors including doctors working on contractual basis. It is further argued that the NOC as required under the definition of "in-service candidate" is also being granted by the respective Departments. Despite the same, the authorities are not permitting the petitioners and extending the benefit of 30% reservation compartment treating them to be in-service candidates owing to the fact that no study leave certificate could be produced by them. It is argued that the conditions with respect to grant of study leave are also different for doctors working under the Directorate of Medical Education and those who are working under the Department of Health Services. The petitioners are required to render their 5 years services and thereafter they are entitled for study leave and those who are working in Public Health and Family Welfare Department are having a condition of 3 years service. In such circumstances, the doctors are being discriminated on this ground also. Therefore, the condition in 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 is contrary and unconstitutional. In view of the aforesaid, the main question which carves out for consideration before this Court is whether Rule 14(7) of Rules 2018 are such that the petitioners are being discriminated from the doctors who are working under the Public Health and Family Welfare Department.
19. That there are two classes of Medical Officers working under the State of Madhya Pradesh, one under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare who are mostly working in the rural areas and some in the District Hospitals in non-rural areas and they deal regularly with day-in-and-day-out patients and the others like Demonstrators, Tutors and Medical Officers who are appointed under the Directorate of Medical Education by Government Autonomous Medical Colleges of the State and are engaged in teaching work. There are no posts of Tutors and Demonstrators in Public Health and Family Welfare Department. The mode of recruitment in both the streams are different.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 17Their appointing authorities are different and place of working and working conditions are also different. They are required to render their services in different sectors i.e. one under the education sector and other treating the day in and day out patients.
20. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners are the doctors who are working under the Directorate of Medical Education. They are being governed by Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018. They are working under the autonomous bodies. An amendment was introduced on 05.10.2021 by Rule 14(7) which has been inserted providing that Demonstrators, Tutors, Medical Officers who are working under the Directorate of Medical Education would be eligible for reservation only when they obtain NOC and Study Leave certificate issued by the Dean/Principal of the concerned college. The petitioners were well aware of the aforesaid condition and knowing so, they participated. As they are being governed by the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 in pursuance to which the appointment orders have been issued and they are bound by this condition. The recruitment of petitioners i.e. Demonstrators, Tutors and Medical Officers is by an autonomous committee of Medical Colleges which is headed by the Divisional Commissioner against the vacancies on the basis of the interviews. They are basically engaged in teaching work. They are required to render their services in the Medical Colleges which are situated in urban areas.
21. The Medical Officers who are working under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare are recruited through Public Service Commission. They are normally posted primarily in rural areas, in Primary Health Centre, Community Health Centre and some are posted in District and Civil Hospitals in urban areas. Their service conditions are totally different. They are being governed by the Government Rules which make them distinguishable from the doctors who are rendering their services in Government Autonomous Medical Colleges. The appointment orders of the petitioners provide that the eligibility Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 18 for grant of study leave would be governed by Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyaleen Shaikshanik Adarsh Seva Niyam, 2018 and Rule 12(1)(vi) specifically provides that an officer has to complete 5 years of service to make him eligible for grant of study leave. The relevant Rule reads as follows:-
"fu;e 12&1 ¼vi½ vè;;u vodk'k& lEiw.kZ lsokdky esa 36 ekg ds vè;;u vodk'k dh ik=rk gksxhA vodk'k vofèk esa osru rFkk egaxkbZ HkÙkk ¼vU; HkÙks ugha½ dh ik=rk gksxhA vè;;u vodk'k dh ik=rk ds fy;s fpfdRlk f'k{kd dh 05 o"kZ dh lsok vofèk iw.kZ gksus ij rFkk vodk'k vofèk lekfIr ds mijkUr 05 o"kZ ls vfèkd dk le; lsokfuo`fÙk gsrq 'ks"k gksuk vko';d gksxkA ,sls fpfdRlk f'k{kd }kjk vè;;u vodk'k vofèk dh lekfIr ds i'pkr~ egkfo|ky; esa 05 o"kZ dh lsok fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA"
22. The question with respect to exclusion of Demonstrators under the Rules of 2018 from the definition of in-service candidates was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neha Tiwari (Dr.) vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2009 (4) M.P.L.J. wherein the Division Bench has held that differentiating the doctors who are working as Demonstrators cannot be classified as in-service candidates for the purpose of admission to the seats allocated for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Courses. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-
"6. Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in AIIM Students' Union and Gopal D. Tirthani (supra), demonstrators cannot be classified as in-service candidates for the purpose of admission to the seats allocated for in-service candidates in postgraduate medical courses. Demonstrators admittedly teach in the medical colleges in the Government of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, remain in touch with theoretical studies and can effectively compete with fresh medical graduates taking the post graduate entrance examination. In other words, their service obligations do not warrant them to work in hospitals Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 19 in urban, rural and tribal areas so as to prevent them from studying and preparing for the post graduate entrance examination. Demonstrators can compete for the open seats and need not be considered for admission to the quota allocated for in-service candidates. Rather, if demonstrators are allowed to compete with in-service candidates, who because of their service obligations are out of touch with theoretical studies and are not able to devote time to the preparation for the common entrance examination, they will push the other service candidates to the bottom of the merit list and will make away all the seats allocated for in-service candidates. The mere fact that demonstrators are also Government servants will not justify their inclusion in the category of in-service candidates considering the real object of allocating certain quota of seats for in-service candidates. We are thus of the view that exclusion of demonstrators under the Rules 2008 from the definition of 'in-service candidate' cannot be held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 83 had an occasion to deal with the classification of in-service candidates and in paragraph-21 it was held as under:-
"21. To withstand the test of reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is well settled that the classification must satisfy the twin tests: (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things placed in a group from those left out or placed not in the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved. It is permissible to use territories or the nature of the objects or occupations or the like as the basis for classification. So long as there is a nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved, the classification is valid. We have, in the earlier part of the judgment, noted the relevant statistics as made available to us by the learned Advocate-General Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 20 under instructions from Dr. Ashok Sharma, Director (Medical Services), Madhya Pradesh, present in the Court. The rural health services (if it is an appropriate expression) need to be strengthened. 229 community health centres (CHCs) and 169 first- referral units (FRUs) need to be manned by specialists and block medical officers who must be postgraduates. There is nothing wrong in the State Government setting apart a definite percentage of educational seats at postgraduation level consisting of degree and diploma courses exclusively for the in- service candidates. To the extent of the seats so set apart, there is a separate and exclusive source of entry or channel for admission. It is not reservation. In-service candidates, and the candidates not in the service of the State Government, are two classes based on an intelligible differentia. There is a laudable purpose sought to be achieved. In-service candidates, on attaining higher academic achievements, would be available to be posted in rural areas by the State Government. It is not that an in-service candidate would leave the service merely on account of having secured a postgraduate degree or diploma though secured by virtue of being in the service of the State Government. If there is any misapprehension, the same is allayed by the State Government obtaining a bond from such candidates as a condition precedent to their taking admission that after completing PG degree/diploma course they would serve the State Government for another five years. Additionally, a bank guarantee of rupees three lakhs is required to be submitted along with the bond. There is, thus, clearly a perceptible reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.
Whether common entrance test -- only one -- is a must?"
24. The aforesaid question further came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AIIMS Students' Union vs. AIIMS and others, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 428 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 21"31. Placing reliance on K. Duraisamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 2 SCC 538 it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the reservation of 33% post-graduation seats in favour of AIIMS students is not a reservation and use of the expression 'reservation' in this context is misplaced. In fact, there are two sources of entry to P.G. courses of study in AIIMS which are: (i) in- house candidates of AIIMS, and (ii) open- category candidates i.e. students other than from AIIMS. The ratio of entry between the two sources is 33:67, that is to say, for admission as against 33% PG seats there is a competition as amongst the students who have passed MBBS examination from AIIMS and they get admission in accordance with the order of merit within their category. The remaining 67% PG seats are available for open category candidates, that is, left open for students other than AIIMS and they get admission in the order of merit prepared out of the candidates belonging to such open category, subject to reservations within that category. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in K. Duraisamy's case, this Court has upheld the legality and permissibility of defining and laying down such two sources of entry and the principles applicable to constitutional reservations for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward candidates cannot be applied to test the validity of two sources of entry to PG courses of study by treating one of the sources of entry as reservation in favour of AIIMS candidates. We are not impressed. K. Duraisamy case was one where limited seats available for post-graduation were equally divided between in-service candidates, i.e., doctors already in the employment (of Government and Semi- Government bodies) and open category candidates which included all candidates, other than those falling within the definition of in-service candidates. This Court held that the State Government had undoubted power, as a matter of policy, insofar as the admissions to super-speciality and P.G. Diploma/Degree/M.D.S. courses are concerned to devise scheme or pattern of two sources of entry based upon a broad classification into two categories, i.e. in-service candidates and non-service Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 22 or private candidates with each one of them allocated exclusively for their own category of candidates 50% of the seats; the ultimate selection for admission depending upon the inter-se merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. A candidate belonging to one category could not move across to the other category and seek entry therefrom. The PG seats available for candidates in each of the two categories were limited and the aspirants in each category were much more than the number of seats allocated to each source of entry. There was competition amongst the candidates belonging to each category. It is not as if all the candidates belonging to any of the two categories were completely assured of availability of seats so as to take away the element of competition and chances of failure for anyone in its entirety. Such scheme envisaged not reservation but classification of the sources from which admissions have to be accorded. This Court also opined that the meaning, content and purport of the expression reservation will necessarily depend upon purpose and object with which it is used. It is to be noted that in K. Duraisamy case in-service candidates did not belong to any weaker section of the society nor were one who deserved or needed to be protected. The candidates in both the categories were medical graduates. Some of them had done graduation sometime in the past and were either picked up in the government service or had sought for joining government service because, may be, they could not get a seat in post-graduation and thereby continue their studies because of shortage of seats in higher level of studies. On account of their having remained occupied with their service obligations they became detached or distanced from theoretical studies and therefore could not have done so well as to effectively compete with fresh medical graduates at the P.G. Entrance Examination. Permitting in- service candidates to do post-graduation by opening a separate channel for admittance would enable their continuance in government service after post- graduation which would enrich health services of the nation. Candidates in open category having qualified in post-graduation may not necessarily feel Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 23 attracted to public services. Providing two sources of entry at the post-graduate level in certain proportion between in-service candidates and otherwise candidates thus achieves the laudable object of making available better doctors both in public sector and as private practitioners. The object sought to be achieved is to benefit two segments of the same society by enriching both at the end and not so much as to provide protection and encouragement to one at the entry level."
25. From the aforesaid, it apparently clear that the candidates in both the categories are Medical Graduates but they have chosen different streams of working; one under the Medical Education which is being governed by different set of rules and other under the Public Health Sector, which are being governed by different rules. They cannot be equated and treated to be similar because of terms and conditions of their recruitment, the rules governing their services, the authorities under which they are rendering their services, the nature of their work and the place of their working. Therefore, the doctors who are working under the Directorate of Medical Education cannot claim parity with the doctors who are rendering services under the Public Health and Family Welfare Department.
26. As already pointed out hereinabove, the petitioners are being governed by Rule 12 of the Rules of 2018, which are applicable to them, which specifically provides that the eligibility of grant of study leave would be governed by Rule 12 as mentioned in their appointment orders. The provision of study leave is enumerated in the M.P. Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1977 and the Rules 12(1)(vi) of the aforesaid rules as it is applicable to the petitioners.
27. The proviso 3 appended to the aforesaid Rule provides that they will be entitled to rejoin their duties on completion of the study leave period, therefore, the aforesaid Rule cannot be held to be illegal. The definition of in-service candidate is provided under clause 2(dha) of the Rules of 2018 which reads as under:-
"2¼èk½ lsokjr vH;FkÊ ls vfHkçsr gS] eè;çns'k ljdkj ds vèkhu fdlh foHkkx vFkok laLFkk esa fu;fer vFkok lafonk lsok esa Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 24 dk;Zjr vH;FkÊ ftlus fu;ksäk ls vukifÙk çkIr djus ds i'pkr~ ços'k gsrq iksVZy ij iath;u djk;k gks"
28. From perusal of the aforesaid definition, it is apparently clear that the in- service candidates will be those who have registered themselves on the portal after obtaining NOC from the employer. The petitioners have been granted NOC and were permitted to participate in the counseling under the category of 30% reservation compartment in pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Diwakar Patel (supra) but the fact remains that to enable them to get the benefit of that 30% reservation compartment for in-service candidate, they are required to comply with the conditions of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 and also the Rules governing their services.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring on record and failed to demonstrate or point out any Rule or Regulation to say that the doctors like Demonstrators, Tutors, Medical Officers who are rendering their services under the Directorate of Medical Education are having the same mode of recruitment and their working conditions are same. As already pointed out hereinabove, they are having different mode of recruitment and different working conditions, therefore, they cannot be equated. The same was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. Diwakar Patel (supra) and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that imposition of condition 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 has discriminated them from the doctors who are working under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare. In such circumstances, Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018 cannot be held to be unconstitutional.
30. As far as declaring of particular provision or rule to be unconstitutional or ultra vires, the personal inconvenience of parties cannot be a factor for declaring a particular rule to be unconstitutional. The aforesaid aspect of the case has been considered in large number of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per settled legal proposition, to declare a relevant section or provision to be ultra vires, certain precautions are required to be observed. The same is considered by Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 25 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Limited PGF and others vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 50 and held as under:
"36. Before adverting to the various contentions raised in challenging the vires of Section 11-AA of the SEBI Act, we feel that it is worthwhile to state and note certain precautions to be observed whenever the vires of any provision of law is raised before the Court by way of a writ petition. It will be worthwhile to lay down certain guidelines in that respect, since we have noticed that on very many occasions a challenge to a provision of law, as to its constitutionality is raised with a view to thwart the applicability and rigour of those provisions and as an escape route from the applicability of those provisions of law and thereby create an impediment for the authorities and the institutions concerned who are to monitor those persons who seek such challenges by abusing process of the Court. Such frivolous challenges always result in prolongation of the litigation, which enables such unscrupulous elements who always thrive on other peoples money to take advantage of the pendency of such litigation preferred by them and thereby gain, on the one side, unlawful advantage on the monitory aspect and to the disadvantage of innocent victims, and ultimately, gain unlawful enrichment of such ill-gotten money by defrauding others. In effect, such attempts made by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ Courts of many such challenges, mostly result in rejection of such challenges. However, at the same time, while taking advantage of the long time-gap involved in the pending proceedings, such unscrupulous litigants even while suffering the rejection of their stand at the end as to the vires of the provisions, always try to wriggle out of their liabilities by stating that the time-lag had created a situation wherein those persons who were lured to part with huge sums of money are either not available to get back their money or such unscrupulous petitioners themselves are not in a position to refund whatever money collected from those customers or investors. It is, therefore, imperative and worthwhile to examine at the threshold as to whether such challenges made are Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 26 bonafide and do require a consideration at all by the writ courts by applying the principle of 'lifting the veil' and as to whether there is any hidden agenda in perpetrating such litigation. With that view, we lay down some of the criteria to be kept in mind whenever a challenge to a provision of law is made before the Court.
37. The Court can, in the first instance, examine whether thereis a prima facie strong ground made out in order to examine the vires of the provisions raised in the writ petition. The Court can also note whether such challenge is made at the earliest point of time when the statute came to be introduced or any provision was brought into the statute book or any long time-gap exist as between the date of the enactment and the date when the challenge is made. It should also be noted as to whether the grounds of challenge based on the facts pleaded and the implication of the provision really has any nexus apart from the grounds of challenge made. With reference to those relevant provisions, the Court should be conscious of the position as to the extent of public interest involved when the provision operates the field as against the prevention of such operation. The Court should also examine the extent of financial implications by virtue of the operation of the provision vis-a-vis the State and alleged extent of sufferance by the person who seeks to challenge based on the alleged invalidity of the provision with particular reference to the vires made. Even if the writ Court is of the view that the challenge raised requires to be considered, then again it will have to be examined, while entertaining the challenge raised for consideration, whether it calls for prevention of the operation of the provision in the larger interest of the public. We have only attempted to set out some of the basic considerations to be borne in mind by the writ Court and the same is not exhaustive. In other words, the Writ Court should examine such other grounds on the above lines for consideration while considering a challenge on the ground of vires to a Statute or the provision of law made before it for the purpose of entertaining the same as well as for granting any interim relief during the pendency of such writ petitions. For the above stated reasons it Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 11/21/2022 12:58:57 PM 27 is also imperative that when such writ petitions are entertained, the same should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and on a time bound basis, so that the legal position is settled one way or the other."
31. In the case of Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) Vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.1510/2020 decided on 06.03.2020) the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the similar aspect has held that possibility of abuse of power is not a ground to declare a provision to be unconstitutional. The Courts have to apply the doctrine of reading down. They are required to gather the intention of the Legislature from the object of the statute, the context in which the provisions occur and purpose for which it is made.
32. By imposition of such a condition i.e. Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018, the petitioners are not debarred from participating in the counseling for NEET PG Examination, 2022 but they are not entitled for any benefit of 30% reservation compartment in the absence of fulfillment of terms and conditions as mentioned in Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 2018. They are required to produce the study leave certificate and NOC from their employer to enable them to avail the aforesaid benefit of 30% reservation compartment.
33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the settled legal proposition of law, no relief can be extended to the petitioners. Rule 14(7) of the Rule of 2018 cannot be declared to be unconstitutional.
34. The petitions sans merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Irfan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 11/21/2022
12:58:57 PM