IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.10737/2011-D Reserved on: 14.12.2011 Decided on: 22.12. 2011 _____________________________________________ Vimal Bharti son of Sh. Kishor Chand Choudhary, r/o village Dhaloon, Tehsil and District Kangra. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary Health to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The Director of Dental Health Services Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 3. Himachal Pradesh University Summer Hill Shimla-5 through its Registrar. …Respondents. Civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Respondent-State initiated the process for filling up 41 posts of Medical Officers (Dental) on batch-wise basis through Rogi Kalyan Samitis vide letter dated 13.7.2011. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued by the respondent- State on 17/18.7.2011. The following criteria was required to be filled for consideration for the post of Medical Officer (Dental) as per letter dated 19.9.2011: “The batch in respect of a particular year shall be from January to December and the batch will be considered from the year of completion of compulsory rotatory internship not the year of registration with the State/Dental Council of India.” 2. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature as per norms prescribed for the post of Medical Officer (Dental) in O.B.C. category. He was called for interview on 24.9.2011. 3. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua has strenuously argued that the petitioner belongs to 2002-2007 batch but the respondent-State has clubbed batches of 2002-2007 and 2003-2007 4. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the batch is to be considered from the date of completion of compulsory rotatory internship and not the year of registration with State/Dental Council of India as per letter dated 19.9.2011. According to him, the petitioner belongs to 2003-2008 batch and not 2002-2003. 3 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. The State has advertised 41 posts of Medical Officers (Dental), out of which 4 posts have been reserved to O.B.C. category. Petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category. 7. The petitioner sought admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery on the basis of combined entrance examination conducted by the H.P. University in the year 2002. However, for certain administrative reasons, the course could not commence immediately and it could commence in the month of February, 2003. Regular examinations for batch 2002-2007 were held in December, 2003, December, 2004, December, 2005 and January, 2007. Petitioner completed compulsory rotatory internship in 2008. The batch of 2003 was also admitted on the basis of combined entrance test held by the Himachal Pradesh University. The final examinations were held in the month of September, 2004, September, 2005, September, 2006 and September, 2007 and the compulsory rotatory internship was completed in the year 2008. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner for all practical purposes belongs to batch 2002-2007. The expression “batch” is to be taken into consideration from the date when the candidate is admitted and the academic year commences and not the completion of compulsory rotatory internship. The petitioner had sought admissions to 2002-2007 batch and 4 for administrative reasons, the classes only commenced in the month of February, 2003. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in the commencement of academic year. The very purpose of providing batch-wise recruitment is that the candidate belonging to earlier batch has to be given preference over and above the subsequent batches. Petitioner sat in the final examination in December, 2003 after seeking admission to 2002-2007 batch and candidates belonging to 2003-2008 batch sat in the final examination in the month of September, 2004. Petitioner has completed the course in June, 2007 and the candidates belonging to 2003-2008 batch sat in final examination in September, 2007. 8. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is to be treated for all practical purposes belonging to 2002-2007 batch. This batch cannot be clubbed with 2003-2008 batch for the purpose of recruitment for the post of Medical Officer (Dental). This action of the respondents of clubbing two batches, i.e. 2002-2007 and 2003-2008 is arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s merit is to be determined from the candidates belonging to 2002-2007 batch and not 2003- 2008 batch. In case both the batches are considered together, it will be against the spirit of making recruitment on batch-wise basis. 5 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the candidates belonging to 2002-2007 and 2003-2008 batches separately for the purpose of recruitment to the posts of Medical Officer (Dental). The recruitment process be now completed within two weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 22.12. 2011 *awasthi*