Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The GDO category shall include the doctors appointed on regular or contract basis by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

Provided that the only those GDO's whether appointed on regular or on contract basis, shall be eligible for selection as Sr. Resident who have served in the peripheral health institutions of the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of at least two years after completion of their Post-Graduation.

Provided further that this provision shall not apply to the specialities of 1. Anatomy 2.Physiology 3.Pharmacology

essential qualification/eligibility prescribed for Tutors, Senior Residents and .

Junior Residents, it cannot be said that petitioners herein do not possess requisite qualification, rather they are equally qualified and possess qualification as framed by MCI, as provided under R&P Rules framed for governing the service of GDOs.

22. Since despite there being creation of posts of Tutors, Senior Residents and Junior Residents, respondents failed to include such posts in the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, coupled with the fact that petitioners possess requisite qualification as prescribed by MCI and Resident Doctor Policy, they cannot be denied the benefit of regularization on the pretext that they do not qualify eligibility criteria prescribed in the R&P Rules. At this stage, Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, argued that since the petitioners came to be appointed in terms of notification dated 22.4.2016, wherein it has been specifically provided that candidates engaged on contract basis under these rules shall have no right to claim regularization/permanent absorption, petitioners cannot seek regularization in terms of the regularization policy formulated by the Government after their initial appointment, however, having carefully perused terms and conditions provided vide notification dated 22.4.2016, (Annexure P-12), this Court finds no force in the afore submissions made by learned Senior Additional Advocate General, because in the terms and conditions as referred herein above, though it has been provided that services of the appointees will be purely on contract basis, but in clause 13 of the terms and conditions, it has been categorically ...33...

regularized the services of some of the doctors belonging to this category in .

terms of regularization policy framed by the State Government. Hence, argument advanced by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, that petitioners and other similarly situate persons are bound by terms and conditions contained in the notification, wherein it has been specifically provided that persons appointed on contract basis shall not have any right to seek regularization /permanent absorption, is otherwise bound to fail on the ground of discrimination. Once such condition provided under R& P Rules framed for the Medical Officers 1st Class Gazetted (General Wing) in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, has not been enforced by the Government while regularizing their services, same also cannot be pressed while considering claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of Regularization Policy.