Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21- Right to life, right to livelihood, right to dignity of life are the fundamental rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, whenever because of arbitrary decision or action, citizens' fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution is affected, then he or she may approach the Court for redressal of grievance.
22- Right to life includes right to quality of life and dignity of life:--2001(6) SCC 496 Hinch Lal Tewari versus Kamala Devi and AIR 1991 SC 1902 Banglore Medical Trust versus B.S. Mudappa, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to quality of life is the part and partial of right to life. Right to life includes hygienic, clean and safe environment and has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2007 SC 1046 Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others and 2006(13) SCC 382 Nagar Nigam, Meerut versus Al Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited and others.
23- Even in contractual matters, Court has been conferred wide power under Section 226 of the Constitution to interfere in case action of the State Government suffers from arbitrariness. In case, the State took decision without application of mind or arbitrarily that too where citizens' right to livelihood and quality of life and care of health is affected, then the Court may interfere in such matters. Discretionary power cannot be exercised by the State in whimsical manner that too on unfounded ground, more so where livelihood is involved. Article 14 provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matter relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 14 is genus while Article 16 is species and when an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it shall be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The State action must be based on valid relevant principles vide E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION 56- Other submission of learned Chief Standing Counsel is that by depriving Ayush Male doctors to seek appointment, State has not caused any gender discrimination. Again it has been submitted by the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners are claiming their right under the NRHM Scheme and Operational Guideline and its implementation. Hence, no finding is required with regard to gender discrimination since it is not the case set up by the petitioners.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY OF STATE AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Apart from food, clothe and shelter, the most important thing which the public required, is the health and education. Now it is settled law that right to livelihood, right to dignity of life, right to quality of life, right to life etc. are the fundamental rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State and the Union of India both have responsibility to care and rejuvenate the health system in their own field. Schedule VII of the Constitution deals with respective field for which Government of India and the State Government should exercise their power in public interest.

Accordingly, State is not justified in not implementing the scheme in the State of U.P. in its letter and spirit when citizens' fundamental right of life, quality of life and hygienic condition etc. protected by Article 21 of the Constitution is in distress. In view of Mohd. Abdul Kadir's case (supra), Male and Female Ayush doctors and pharmacists appointed under the scheme, are entitled to continue in terms of NRHM scheme and Operational guideline subject to finance provided by the Government of India till the scheme continues and subject to satisfactory discharge of duty.