JAWAHARLAL ZONGLUZU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner joined as Medical Officer on 20. 09. 2002 and he has served as Medical Officer for more than 6 years including 3 years mandatory service in rural areas. The respondent No. 3, Dr. Todak Taba, joined as Medical Officer on 12. 07. 2004 and he has completed only about 4 years and 5 months of service. By letter dated 11. 11. 2008, the respondent No. 4, Director of Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS, in short), Imphal, requested the Commissioner (Health) to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to sponsor in-service candidates for admission in post-graduate courses (MD/ms/diploma) at RIMS for the academic session 2009. It was informed that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has been allotted 7 seats, in total, one each in the subjects of Anatomy, Forensic Medicine, Obs. and Gynaecology, Otorhinolarygology, Pathology, Pediatrics and T. B. and R. D. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh circulated the said information through FAX message to different districts of the State. In response, 6 in-service candidates (Medical Officers) applied for nomination. The Government constituted a Selection Board for nomination of Medical Officers, who on being nominated would be allowed to appear in the Entrance Examination for admission in the aforesaid courses. The Board held its meeting on 05. 01. 2009 and found the petitioner, alongwith other 3 candidates eligible. The Board found respondent No. 3 ineligible for the course as he has not completed the minimum service period of 5 years and the mandatory period of 3 years in the rural posting. Dr. Phinya, M. O. , is a physically handicapped person. He was found ineligible as he did not complete the minimum mandatory rural posting of 3 years. However, his case was cleared on the recommendation of the Minister (H and FW ). There was no such clearance in respect of respondent No. 3, yet, he was also nominated alongwith 5 others for appearing in the Entrance Examination for the aforesaid post-graduate courses. In the Examination conducted by RIMS, Imphal, out of 6 candidates nominated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, respondent No. 3, stood first amongst them securing 61 marks and the petitioner stood second securing 51 marks. The respondent No. 3 being placed at the top of the merit list, was allowed to take admission in Obs. and Gynaecology subject whereas the petitioner was allowed to take admission in TB and RD although he opted for Obs. and Gynaecology subject.

(3.) MR . R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, submits that though service of respondent No. 3 falls short by 7 months for completion of 5 years, he has completed the mandatory 3 years rural posting and as such, the said respondent is quite eligible for being nominated for undergoing the aforesaid course. The learned counsel has also relied on a communication dated 15. 12. 2008 issued by the DMO, Papum Pare District, Yupia, wherein details of his rural posting of 3 years have been shown. According to this communication, the respondent No. 3 served at Palin CHC for a period of 1 year and 4 months, at Karsingsha Sub-Centre under CMO, Naharlagun, for a period of 1 year and 5 months, at Bath Sub-Centre under Papum Pare DMO for a period 4 months, at Tarasso PHC for a period of 1 year and 4 months, which comes to a total of 4 years and 5 months. According to the learned counsel, considering the aforesaid service period rendered by respondent No. 3, he was nominated/sponsored by the State Government for admission in the aforesaid Course. The learned counsel also contended that since the private respondent No. 3 stood first in the Entrance Exam so he was allotted the Subject Obs. and Gynaecology by the RIMS authority. According to Mr. Saikia, the State respondent authorities have rightly sponsored the respondent No. 3 and his nomination is not liable to be cancelled at this stage as he has already taken admission and is pursuing the course for last about 3 months.