Case: Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and Ors

3. Ostensibly to rectify a constant shortage of doctors in Bihar which was adversely impacting public health, the State of Bihar decided to fill vacant posts in hospitals. Accordingly, an advertisement was published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter, Commission) in various local newspapers on 18.07.2014, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 2301 vacant posts of General Medical Officer in Bihar. The selection process was elucidated in Clause 5 of the Advertisement wherein general sub¬cadre doctors were to be selected on the basis of a merit list prepared by giving weightage for academic qualifications (marks obtained in MBBS ¬ 50 marks, and higher degree ¬ 10 marks), work experience (5 marks per year for a maximum of 25 marks) and marks obtained in interview (out of 15 marks). It is important to reproduce the relevant portion of the advertisement to aptly comprehend the selection criteria which is to the following effect:5. Selection Process – For appointment of the doctors in the general sub cadre the candidates shall be selected on the basis of the merit list prepared on the basis of the academic qualification, work experience and the marks obtained in the interview. In case there are more applications than the vacancy/vacancies, five times candidates shall be invited for the interview as against the vacancy/vacancies prescribed reservation wise100 marks shall be prescribed for academic qualification, work experience and interview. The 100 marks shall be counted as underMarks obtained in M.B.B.S. – total 50 marksMasters degree or higher degree – total 10 marksWork experience after appointment on regular/contract basis in the Government hospitals (the work experience of the Government hospital of the Government of Bihar only shall be counted) – total 25 marksBut 05 marks shall be given for the work experience of the whole year, thus, maximum 25 marks shall be givenOral interview – total 15 marksNote – (a) The marks given to any candidate on the basis of the M.B.B.S. course shall be on multiplication of 0.5 with the total of all the examinations of the said course, viz., if the total of the total marks obtained by any candidate in all examinations of the M.B.B.S. coms to 50%, then he shall be given 50% x 0.5 = 25 marks(c) There shall be requirement of minimum 30 marks on the basis of academic qualification, work experience and interview for consideration of any candidate for appointment in the general duty sub cadre4. Pursuant to this advertisement, the appellant also applied for the post of General Medical Officer. She was called for an interview where she was informed that no marks could be granted under the head of work experience as she lacked experience in a hospital run by the Government of Bihar. Post conduction of interview, a merit list was prepared. The appellant was unsuccessful in securing a place in the merit list as she had obtained only 42.61 marks which did not meet the prescribed cut off of 53.04 marks for the General Category5. The aggrieved appellant filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging Clause 5(iii) of the advertisement issued by the Commission to the extent it mandated that only work experience in hospitals of Government of Bihar shall be considered for awarding marks for work experience. The appellant contended that this Clause of the advertisement was in contravention of the Rules (which didnt prescribe any such limitation of work experience only being in hospitals of the Government of Bihar). She was upset that her work experience in the Army Medical Corp Hospital had been disregarded while others who served in Bihar Government hospitals were given due weightage. She felt that if not for this erroneous interpretation of the Rules, she would have been selected for the post of General Medical Officer. Similarly, some other candidates also approached the Patna High Court, agitating their exclusion pursuant to the non-consideration of work experience in non¬private hospitals other than those administered by the Government of Bihar6. A Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed all these writ petitions with a brief order holding that the validity of such provision had already been upheld by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Dr. Dharmbir Kumar v. State of Bihar 2015 (2) PLJR 916   and, therefore, the appellant could not plead that exclusion of service rendered in Army Hospitals, while evaluating work experience, resulted in discrimination7. Unsatisfied with this Order, the appellant filed a Letter Patent Appeal, with the foremost plea that the condition in the advertisement which restricted the work experience to only hospitals of Government of Bihar, was contrary to the Rules which gave weightage for experience in any Government hospital for the purpose of drawing the merit list. Further, it was highlighted that in Dharmbir (supra) the Division Bench had dismissed a petition relating to appointment of Dentists wherein a challenge had been made against grant of benefit of experience to contractual employees. This was contended as being different from the present case. Additionally, the appellant placed reliance on the English version of the analogous Bihar Dentist Service Rules, 2014 which explicitly defined the term Government hospital to include hospitals run by both Central and State Government, to show that the same should be transposed to the present instance8. The Division Bench placed reliance on several decisions of this Court including Ram Surat Mishra v. State of U.P. (2008) 7 SCC 409   and M/s J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1534  , and followed the dictum therein to note how the Hindi version only referred to Government of Bihar and there being a conflict between English and Hindi versions, the latter version of the Bihar Dentist Service Rules, 2014 would prevail. The Bench further observed that Rule 2(a) of the Dentist Rules defined Government as Government of Bihar and that thus work experience under Rule 6(iii) must be read conjointly with Rule 2(a) which would show that only work experience in hospitals of Government of Bihar ought to be considered for awarding marks under the head of work experience. The intra¬court appeal was thus dismissed, giving rise to further challenge through this Special Leave Petition.

Court's reasoning:
The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance18. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process19. The question of permissibility of giving weightage for work experience in government hospitals is also not the bone of contention in this case. Medicine being an applied science cannot be mastered by mere academic knowledge. Longer experience of a candidate adds to his knowledge and expertise. Similarly, government hospitals differ from private hospitals vastly for the former have unique infrastructural constraints and deal with poor masses. Doctors in such non¬private hospitals serve a public purpose by giving medical treatment to swarms of patients, in return for a meagre salary. Hence, when placing emphasis on the requirement of work experience, there is no dispute on such recognition of government hospitals and private hospitals as distinct classes. Instead such recognition ensures that the doctors recruited in notso-rich states like Bihar have the requisite exposure to challenges faced in those regions20. The appellant has thus rightly not challenged the selection procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the respondents interpretation of work experience as part of merit determination. Since interpretation of a statute or rule is the exclusive domain of Courts, and given the scope of judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellants challenge cannot be turned down at the threshold. However, we are not commenting specifically on the merit of appellants case, and our determination is alien to the outcome of the selection process. It is possible post what is held hereinafter that she be selected, or not21. It is a settled cannon of statutory interpretation that as a first step, the Courts ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct it literally. Provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its words a common textual meaning. However, this tool of interpretation can only be applied in cases where the text of the enactment is susceptible to only one meaningDevi Gupta,(2005) 2 SCC 271 &  para;13. Nevertheless, in a situation where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the text, the Courts must also give due regard to the consequences of the interpretation taken24. At the outset, the respondents contention that meaning of the term Government hospital would be bound by the restrictive definition of Government under Rule 2(a) of the Rules, does not sound well. It is settled that grammatical rules must be given due weightage during statutory interpretation. ( Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR 829 &  para;6.) Rule 2 is a definitional provision and defines Government as a noun. However, it would not necessarily govern instances where the word has been used in another form. (See FCC v. AT&T Inc. 562 U.S. 397 (2011); where the Supreme Court of the United States held that definition of person as a noun would not be applicable to its use as an adjective.)Under Rule 5, the operative phrase is any Government hospital. Here, Government is restrictively defining the noun hospital to exclude those run by certain entities. Thus, Government as part of Government hospital is a noun adjunct and has been used as an adjective. Such usage of a noun in its adjectival form changes its character altogether and it would be unwise to import the meaning of its noun form. This is especially true considering how the prefatory portion of Rule 2 explicitly provides that the definitions as prescribed thereunder shall be referred to unless otherwise required in context. The phrase Government hospital therefore cannot be construed to exclude other non-private hospitals which are otherwise run exclusively with the aid and assistance of the Governments. Additionally given the difference in common usage wherein government hospital refers to all non-private hospitals and not hospitals established by a particular government, Rule 5 & 6(iii) would not be bound by Rule 2(a)26. In addition to this, adopting the respondents interpretation would increase uncertainty and create practical difficulties. When Rule 2(a) is applied to Government hospital there is substantial ambiguity created as to whether or not hospitals run by instrumentalities of the Government, which are not strictly owned by the Government of Bihar would be included within Rule 5. When a pointed question was put forth to learned counsel for the respondents as to whether a hospital established by the municipality or one run by an institute substantially funded by State money would be included in their definition, no clear answer was forthcoming. Such issues are bound to arise repeatedly in any selection process. Given how there is no simple answer to such questions, the rigid interpretation adopted by the Government would only lead to friction in the system and cause interpretative chaos which would undermine the fair and just right to compete for public employment27. Further, if faced between a choice in which only a few people would be eligible versus a fairly large group, we feel that the latter ought to be adopted to have a diverse pool of applicants. This would promote merit, bring better doctors and further the Constitutional scheme of providing equal opportunity in public employment to the masses. We are thus of the view that the provisions of the Rules in the case¬at¬hand cannot be construed or explained by applying the principle of literal interpretation28. In pursuance to the above analysis, we are of the view that it is necessary to resort to purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Rules, in light of its objectives. Otherwise also as per the prefatory part of Article 309, the Rules framed thereunder must be in conformity with all other Constitutional provisions, which necessarily includes Part III. Dealing with recruitment in Government hospitals, it is clear that the object and purpose of the Rules too must satisfy the test of Article 1634. It is hence irrational to urge that the work experience in any such hospital is different from that in a Government of Bihar hospital. Hence, it would be Constitutionally unjust to allow differentiation between the experience gained by doctors at these hospitals established by Panchayats or Municipalities or by the Central Government and its instrumentalities in the territory of Bihar vis¬à¬vis those run by the Bihar Government. Any attempt to discriminate between hospitals run by the State Government and the Central Government or Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions is bound to hit the very ethos of our Constitutional governance setup35. Having said so, we are not oblivious to the fact that equality does not imply that there can be no classification. Instead, sometimes it may be necessary to treat unequals unequally, for equal treatment of persons with unequal circumstances creates an unjust situation.Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 ¶ 415.Such classification, however, must not be arbitrary but rationally founded on some quality or characteristics which are identifiable within the class of people so created and absent in those excluded from such classification36. We are of the view that the purpose behind formulation of the Rules was to recognize the unique challenges of hospitals in Bihar and incentivise doctors to work in non-private hospitals. There is some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that Bihar is predominantly poor and thus requires doctors having exposure to such challenging environment as compared to their counterparts in private hospitals. Experience in a non¬private hospital instills sensitivity in its doctors, making them more adept to understand the ail and agony of poor patients. Such experience will undoubtedly be useful in furthering the object of Government hospitals and must be given due weightage while selecting suitable candidates. Interpreting Government hospitals to include only a small class of persons who have worked under the Government of Bihar, is thus clearly erroneous and anti¬merit. Such an objective would not be defeated by the understanding of the Rules as has been construed by usIt may thus be seen that the Constitution envisages the setting up of hospitals by many different public authorities, including the Central Government, State Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions32. In addition, it is a well¬known fact that several hospitals throughout the country have been set up by instrumentalities of the Central or State Governments, more notably the Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospitals, to cater to the need of poor and needy persons. These hospitals, therefore, are at par with other government hospitals for all intents and purposes, and the experience gained by a doctor in such hospitals subsume the characteristics acquired in a hospital set up by the Bihar Government33. Other hospitals are also established by instrumentalities of the States and the Centre in pursuance of Constitutional obligations under Part IV. These although not strictly covered within the ambit of the Rules as propounded by the respondents, nevertheless serve the same purpose of providing best medical facilities to public at large. An apt example is of Army hospitals, and there is little reason to ignore and overlook the experience gained in such hospitals.