ABHAY KUMAR OJHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners, who are serving as Senior Medical Officers in different Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government & joint venture of Central Government with the State Government, have filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance or a mandamus to the Opp. Parties directing them to consider their candidature as In -service candidates in the Post Graduate (Medical) Selection, 2012 & for a declaration that Clauses 6.2 & 6.2.1 of the Prospectus for selection of candidates in Post. Graduate (Medical) Selection, 2012, Odisha, (in. short, "Prospectus, 2012") are illegal & arbitrary.

(2.) THE Petitioners after completion of the MBBS course acquired MBBS degrees from the Government Medical Colleges of the State of Odisha. They were selected as Medical Officers on contractual basis by the Government of Odisha in the Health Department and posted within the State for about two years. Petitioner No. 1 was selected and appointed -Under Nilachala Ispat Nigam Limited which is a Public Sector Undertaking formed by the joint venture of Central Government and State Government. Petitioner No. 2 joined as Medical Officer in Steel Authority of India Limited which is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking and continued there till 2007. At present, he has joined at Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela under Steel Authority of India Limited. Petitioner No. 3 joined as Asst. Surgeon in P.H.C. (New), Birikot in the district of Gajapati and he is continuing in the Employees State Insurance Corporation Model Hospital, Rourkela under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India since June, 2005. The Petitioners, who are serving in the above hospitals, contended that they have completed their MBBS Course from the Government Medical Colleges of the State of Odisha and after completion of their course, they served the people of the State as Medical Officers, but they are being treated differently in the Prospectus, 2012 issued by the Convenor of P.G. (Medical) Selection Committee, 2012. Though they are coming under in -service candidates, their candidature is not included as In -service candidates under Clauses 6.2 and 6.2.1 of the Prospectus, 2012. It is further contended that till the academic year 1987 -1988 the State Government allowed the doctors, who were serving under Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government, on completion of five years of service to be considered as In -service candidates and their application for selection into PG (Medical) Courses were accepted as against the in service seats. But for the first time in the year 1988 -1989, the doctors serving under Public Sector Undertakings were excluded from the definition of "in -service candidates" for which some of the candidates filed Writ Petition challenging the action of the Government. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition declaring the note appended to paragraph 1.2 of the Prospectus, in so far as that excluded the category of doctors as the Petitioners, as invalid referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court. It is further contended that till 2005, the prospectus issued by the Selection Committee included the candidates who were serving in the Public Sector Undertakings as In -service candidates but for the first time in the year 2007, the Prospectus was modified by the Opp. Parties without application of mind and no such decision was taken in the matter as enshrined in law excluding the candidates like the Petitioners from the zone of consideration as in -service candidates. The same is continuing from 2007 till date i.e. for the current year of 2012. Therefore, the Prospectus issued by the Opp. Parties excluding the Petitioners from in -service candidates under Clauses 6.2 and 6.2.1. is liable to be struck down as illegal and arbitrary and the Petitioners are ready to give an undertaking as required to be given by the candidates under the category of "In -service candidates" to serve the State at least for five years or more in case of their selection and the financial burden will be borne by their employers and they are entitled to get the benefits as in -service candidates.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties traversing the contentions of the Petitioners.