1 wpl445-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.445 OF 2011 Dr.Sneha S. Bowlekar ....Petitioner V/s. Director of Medical Education & Research & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.R.S. Kadam for the Petitioner. Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. FRIDAY 18TH MARCH 2011. P.C. :- 1. The petitioner is the Assistant Medical Officer in a hospital under the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. The petitioner joined the services of Municipal Corporation on 5.3.2009. On 28.12.2010, Municipal Corporation issued a circular inviting the applications from the eligible candidates in Municipal Corporation as Medical Officer/Assistant Medical Officer etc. for the enrollment to the post graduate medical courses for the year 2011. The eligibility criteria laid down by the Municipal Corporation inter-alia provided that the candidate must have worked in Municipal Corporation for Greater 2 wpl445-11 Mumbai at least for two years as M.O./AM.O./Jr.A.M.O./C.M.O. All the eligible candidates will have to appear for in service PGM-CET 2011 which will be conducted by Directorate of Medical Education & Research of Maharashtra State according to their scheduled mentioned below :- A) Last date of receiving application at L.T.M. Medical College, Ground floor, Room No.12 is 11.1.2011. 2. The examination was scheduled to be conducted for the post of PGM-CET 2011 on 6.2.2011 by D.M.E.R. The circular further provided that in service P.G. Admission 2011 at BMC Medical College will be conducted on the basis of the PGM-CET and recommended by the head office and approved by the Joint Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Municipal Commissioner. 3. The petitioner applied in response to the said circular, but the respondent corporation did not accept the petitioner’s application. The petitioner did appear in PGM-CET 2011 examination as a private candidate. The grievance in the present petition is that the respondent had not accepted and forwarded the petitioner’s application as in service candidate for the above examination though the petitioner would have completed two years service under the Municipal Corporation on the date of admission to the post graduate medical course. 4. In support of the contention, the petitioner has relied upon the case of Dr.Pravin Bangar, who had been appointed as the Medical Officer on 26.2.2009 but was granted N.O.C. and was allowed to appear in the said examination. 3 wpl445-11 5. The affidavit in reply has been filed by the Deputy Executive Health Officer of the respondent corporation. It is pointed out that total six seats are reserved for in-service P.G. Courses in three Municipal General Hospitals every year and that as against the six seats the MCGM has received many applications out of which the respondent No.3 has granted 26 NOC’s to the candidates who have completed two years at the time of application and also rejected approximately 20 to 22 applications for non completion of two years service in M.C.G.M. It is further stated that as per condition No.4 of the circular, a candidate must have worked as M.O./A.M.O./Jr.A.M.O./C.M.O. in the Municipal Corporation at least for two years. 6. At the meeting of the committee held on 7.1.2011, it was recorded in the minutes that in case of Doctors working under EHO and Ch.M.S, all the Doctors who have completed 2 years of service at the time of application and also fulfill the eligibility criteria in accordance to the MCGM, post graduate rules will be allowed to apply for Inservice PG Course (emphasis supplied). On the basis of the above, Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, the learned counsel for the respondent corporation has submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of completion of in service two years on the date of the receiving the application, as the petitioner had been appointed on 5.3.2009 and the last date of receiving the application was on 11.1.2011. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular of the Municipal Corporation at Exhibit “H” for the year 2009-2010 mentioned that minimum two years was required for admission to the post graduate course and therefore, calculating the 4 wpl445-11 length of service should be the date of the admission to the post graduate course and not the date of receiving the application. It is submitted that in the past, this was not the eligibility criteria of in service candidates and there is no justification for that. It is also submitted that Dr.Bangar’s case justifies the petitioner’s case that the relevant date is the date of admission to the course and not the last date of receiving the application. 8. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation on the other hand submits, on the basis of the affidavit in reply, that Dr.Bangar was working in K.E.M. on ad-hoc basis since 2007 and was appointed as the regular A.M.O. from 26.2.2009. It is therefore submitted that Dr.Bangar had definitely completed more than two years service on the last date of receiving applications which was 11.1.2011 and therefore, no discriminatory treatment has been made out to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would of course submits that ad-hoc service could not be considered for the purpose of computation of length of service. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the question of computing the length of service is not being considered here for the purpose of determining seniority in a cadre of Medical Officer/Assistant Medical Officer, but for the purpose of counting the length of service under the Municipal Corporation and therefore, the decision of the Corporation to consider Dr.Bangar as an eligible candidate for appearing at the P.G.-C.E.T. cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. On the other hand the petitioner does not have two years 5 wpl445-11 service. There is nothing to suggest that the date of admission to the course is the relevant date. 10. We do not find any merit in the matter. The petition is therefore, dismissed summarily. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.