g. Ja gE )3/@/* 3mm gavcn 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR W13 {3); NO 357’ 9/%/& Dr. KK. $0M, S/o LATE SHRI MP. $0M) AGE ABOUT 53 YRS, ANAESTHESIA SPECIALIST, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KAKEE(C.G.) PETETIONER V/S ( 1) e/S/TATE OF CI'HLATTISGARH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPAR” “VENT OF HLALTH & WELFARE ENT T) K S BHAWAN § RESPONDENTS 3 {2) DIRECTGE HEALTH SERVICES, OLD NURSES HQSTEE, DKS EHAWAN CAMPUS, RATEUR (CG) WK“ w DIRECTOR, MEDTCAL EDUCATION, OLD NURSES HOSTEL, DKS BHAWAN CAMPUS, RAIPUR (C.G.) g, (4) CIVIL SURGEON, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KAKER(C.G.) (5) DEAN PANDIT IAWARHALAI N HRU MEMORIAL MEDICAL COL EGE,I>APUR(C.C.) WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE {:ONSTTTUTTON OF INDTA FOR TSSEJANQE OF VVRTT TN THE NATERE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORART OR ANY OTHER SHITABLE ‘WRTT V g M §\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Writ Petition (S) No.3574/2010 PETITIONER Dr. K.K. Som Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh &, Ors. Apgearance: Shri Ali Asgarz counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 12? .082010) 1. Aggrieved by decision of the respondent No.2, Director, Health Services as contained in the impugned communication dated 30th June, 2010 (Annexure P-l); the petitioner has filed this petition praying for issuance of writ of mandamus by directing respondents to provide sponsorship to the petitioner to pursue Post Graduate Course in Anesthesia, consequent upon his selection. 2. Fact necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer Grade— II in the year 1987. In his pursuit for knowledge, the petitioner while in service, obtained diploma in Anesthesia in the year 1987. Vide order dated 6th January, 2007 (Annexure P—2), the petitioner was promoted as Grade-l Medical Officer and is presently posted as Specialist (Anesthesia) at District Hospital, Kanker. é? 3. The petitioner appeared in the Pre— RG. Examination 2010 for admission to P.G. Course and he, upon his selection, was called for counseling Vide letter dated 30m April, 2010 for admission to RG. Course (Annexure P—4). Thereafter, a letter of selection dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure P—S) was issued by the Director, Medical Education, grating admission to the petitioner in RG, course in the subject of Anesthesia in Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur. In that letter, it was stated that the petitioner would be allowed to join the course upon production of Sponsorship Certificate. . However, Vide impugned communication dated 30th June, 2010 (Annexure P—l), respondent.No.2 communicated to respondent No.3 its inability to sponsor the name of the petitioner on “administrative grounds”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the aforesaid decision on the part of respondent No.2, submits that the decision to refuse to sponsor the name of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in View of the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Pan'ksha Niyam, 200$ (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of2004"), petitioner was entitled to issuance of Sponsorship Certificate and there was no impediment under the Rules to sponsor the name of the petitioner as he was duly selected and provisionally admitted to P.G. Course. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provision contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2004, Rule 5.1 is not applicable as he is not 'Assistant Surgeon. In his case, Rule 5.2 is applicable. Referring to the averrnents made in the return, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons stated by the respondents in their return, forming basis for denial ‘of sponsorship, are on the face on it, completely irrational and in complete ignorance of the petitioner’s present status as Specialist. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the other reason for refusing to sponsor the name of the petitioner on the basis that he is already possessed of diploma, is quite arbitrary, as also discriminatory, inasmuch as, other similarly situated candidates who were possessed of diploma course, have been sponsored and Sponsorship Certificate has been issued in their favour. . On the other hand, resisting the claim of the petitioner, submission of learned Dy. Advocate General is that as per Rule 5.1, only Assistant Surgeon working under the Government of Chhattisgarh will be eligible to be sponsored. He further submits that earlier the petitioner had obtained diploma in Anesthesia and was thereafter, promoted as Specialist, therefore, his name has not been sponsored, even though, he has been selected in the P.G. Course. . I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. . Issuance of sponsorship certificate to enable serving Medical Officer§iin Government service, to pursue P.G. course as in service candidate is regulated by the Rules of 2004, which have been framed by the State Government in exercise of statutory powers conferred by sub~Section (1) of Section-4 of the Chhattisgarh Chikz'tsa Mahaz/idhyalayon Ke Snatkottar Pathyakramon Main Pravesh Adhiniyam, 2002. The Rules, therefore, have statutory force. Issuance of Sponsorship Certificate is provided under the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Rulesof 2004. §4> This Rules has besn further amended Vide notification dated 11—02- 2010, which have come into force by publication in Chhattisgarh Rajpatra dated 26—02—2010. It may be relevant to mention that Rule 4 of the Rules of 2004 as amended in the year 2010 provide that 50% seats in P. G. course and 50% seats in P.G. Diploma course are reserved for State Government Doctors working under and sponsored by the State Government. It further provides that out of total seats eserved for State Government Doctors, 50% seats both in Degree 86 Diploma shall be reserved for the candidates working in CRMC institutions. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2004, as amended vide notification dated 11-02~2010, relevant for adjudication in the case in hand, is as under:— “5.1 For Assistant Surgeons.- Only such Assistant Surgeons working under the Government of Chhattisgarh will be eligible to be sponsored for the course who will be completing five years of service after their selection by Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission or their regularization by the State Government as the case may be on or before 30m April of the year in which th Pre-PG Examination is held. This period shall be counted from the date ofjoining the service afte selectin from Public Service Commission or their regularization as the case may be. However State Government doctors wking in hardest/hard CRMC Institions both s regular or contratual employees and have completed three years of service 30th of April of the year of examination shall also be entitled for the ses reserved for State Government doctors’ quota. Certificate for such eligibility has to be issued by Drector Health Services of Chhattisgarh'. ”5.2 For other in service candidatesz- In service r e r o or ut a c on at i §§ candidates, other than Assistant Surgeons referred to above will have to produce sponsorship certificate in the prescribed pro—forma from their employers at the time of counseling.” . Before dealing with the merits of the case in the light of statutory provisions contained in the Rules of 2004, it would be apt to note that in the petition, the petitioner has reproduced Rule 5 of the Rules of 2004. However, When the Rules’ as published in Chhattisgarh Law Times 2004, Port~II at Page 52 are perused, .it is found that there is material discrepancy. The petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the information brochure, Which has been published by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Heath and Family Welfare. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has also placed before the Court original booklet named "Pre-P.G. Application Form, 2010.” It was found that what has been placed before this Court as Annexure P—3 and Rule 5 as reproduced in the petition is one as contained in the “Pre—P.G. Application Form ,2010" published and circulated to the candidates. This Court 1s shocked to see that the machinery engaged 1n conducting the examination preparing and getting printed forms for Circulation to desxrous candidates did not take care proper care and caution to ensure that the admission Rules of 2004 are correctly printed. To verify this position, this Court directed the learned Dy. Advocate General to place before this Court the Government Notification dated 24.4.2004 containing the aforesaid Rules of 2004 Learned Dy Advocate General placed the same for perusal of this Court and it was found that though the Rules have been correctly 'v. J 9k published in Chhattisgarh Law Times, 2004, the Rules as have been printed and published in the Forms circulated to the candidates, which has been niaced on record as Annexure P—3, is not the correct reproduction of the Rules. In Rule 5.1, the title is “For Government Doctors”, Whereas, in the Rules, as they originally stand, it is written “For Assistant Surgeons”. Similarly in Rule 5.2 the heading is “For Government Doctors”, whereas in the Rules, as they originally stand, it is written “For Other in Service Candidates”. 10. However, after perusal of the Notification, as was placed before the Court by the learned Dy. Adv. General, it is now clear that the heading under Rule 5.1 is “For Assistant Surgeons” Whereas in Rule 5.2 the heading is “For Other in Service Candidates”. 11.‘Similarly, in the body of rules under Clause 5.1, “For Assistant Surgeons”, words “Government Doctors” have been printed. The other Words “Other than. Assistant Surgeons” referred to above does not at all finds place in Annexure P-3. ’ . , one, Both which the parties, has been however, placed do on not record dispute as Annexure that the correct P—8, tiled version by the is petitioner on 12.8.2010 along with application for takingdocurnents”0n record and the correct English version is one, which has been reproduced in C.G. Law Times, 2004, Part—ll at Page 52 (under item iwi No.28). 13. In order to re'ect J petitioner’s aPplication for issuance of Sponsorship Certificate, the respondents have come out with following three "(a) only Assistant Surgeons working in the Government reasons, .as contained in paragraph— 6 of the return: , k 97 of Chhattisgarh are eligible to be sponsored (b) that the petitioner has already obtained diploma ' course in Anesthesia 86 (c) he has been promoted and working as Specialist — Anesthesia.” 14‘ If those reasons are scrutinized with reference to the provision contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2004 and admitted factual position as obtaining on the records of the case, it is clear that the petitioner, j y being a Specialist, was entitled to issuance of Sponsorship Certificate under Clause 5.2 of Rules 5 of the Rules of 2004, as he fell in the category of “Other in Service Candidates”. Clause 5.1 is applicable only in the case of Assistant Surgeons. For Medical Officers, other than Assistant Surgeons, who fall in the residuercategory names as “Other in Service Candidates”, Clause 5.2 is applicable which provides for production of Sponsorship Certificate. Therefore, it is not at all correct on the part of respondents to say that only Assistant Surgeons are entitled to issuance of Sponsorship Certificate. There is no express r the Rules which disqualifies the Specialist category of provision unde doctors to pursue P.G. Course. 15. The other reason for refusal to grant Sponsorship Certificate is equally untenable in law. The petitioner has placed on record list of doctors who have been sponsored twice by the Government, as Annexure P-7. A perusal of the said list immediately reveals that they are other doctors who have been allowed to pursue P.G. course more than once. There is no express bar under the Rules that once a medical officer has been allowed to pursue P.G. Course, he will not be sponsored. dents have not come out with any basis for such discrimination. Respon 16'. The third ground that the petitioner is working as Specialist at Kanker, therefore, he could not be sponsored is also untenable in law, as there is no express bar in the Rules that those who have been promoted and working as Specialist would not be entitled to issuance of Sponsorship Certificate. On the contrary, statutory scheme contained in Rule 5, clearly discloses that Sponsorship Certificate will be issued not only to Assistant Surgeons but also to Other in Service Candidates which will l include all other classes of Medical officers, obviously, a Specialist also. Clause 5.2 applies in respect of residual class except Assistant Surgeon ’ for whom the separate provision under clause 5.1 has been made. In the absence of any express exclusion of Specialist, this Court is inclined to hold that the reasons forming basis for refusal of sponsorship to the petitioner are arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Rules of 2004. 17. It has therefore, to be held that there Was no valid basis to‘ deny sponsorship to the petitioner to pursue P.G. Course. The decision of the respondent No.3 as contained in impugned communication (Annexure P—l) is declared illegal and inoperative under the law. Respondent No.3 is directed t0 issue Sponsorship Certificate to the x petitioner forthwith to enable him to pursue P.G. Course for which the 5N V W1 petitioner has been selected. 18. As has been observed hereinabove, while holing the examination, the concerned Agency appears to have committed serious mistake while publishing Rules under the printed application forms of Pre—P.Gt Examination, which is clear from Annexure P—3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions, submitted that Annexure P<3 is the “ 20. 21. .raVeCn S9 printed examination form which was given to the petitioner, which contained the complete Rules of 2004. If that be so, it is Very serious matter as it does not correctly reproduce the Rules. The manner in which in place of “For Assistant Surgeons” and “For other in Service ’ Candidates”, words “Government Doctors” has been used, a deliberate design to distort the Rules cannot be ruled-out. In fact, the use of ‘ words “Government Doctors” in place of “Assistant Surgeons” in Rule 5.1 and “For Other in Service Candidates” in Rule 5.2, makes world of difference and also materially alters the eligibility criteria for “Other in Service Candidates”. Taking into consideration that it relates to admission to RG. Course in the Medical College in the State, it calls for enquiry at the highest level in the Department of Medical Education and fix responsibility on those who are responsible for such a State of affair. A copy of this order be sent to respondent No.1 for appropriate action. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner 19. indicated above. No order as to costs. i Sd/ n if: H Manindra Mohan Shrivastava i Judge