GOVIND KANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Shri Govind Kant Sharma, a Lecturer in the College of Nursing, Jaipur; seeking an appropriate writ, direction or order. He prays : (1) that the orders of the State Government dated 11 4-67 and 3-6-69 refusing to treat the petitioner on duty and on deputation when he was away at Chandigarh for training be quashed, (2) the State Government be further directed to confer the benefit of rule 7 (8) (b) (l) and rule 25 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on the petitioner, and (3) the Government be directed to determine the number of vacancies of Sister Tutors year by year and then to accord further promotion to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner came to be appointed as a Compounder on 7-6 59 He was promoted as Sister Tutor in the Medical Department on 23-5-60. THE petitioner made an application for being permitted for Advance training in Nursing (Education and Administration) in 1962. He avers that this application was granted by the Ministry of Health, Government of India, Delhi by their order dated 30-6-62. THE petitioner makes grievance of the fact that although he was selected for this training, he was not permitted to join the course while others were allowed to join the course and some of them were there who were not selected. On 9-6-65, the Director of Medical and Health Services (hereinafter to be referned as "'d. M. &h. S") recommended to the State Government to allow the petitioner the Followship of World Health Organisation for receiving advance course of B. Sc, in Nursing (Post Basic Degree Course ). However, the Government did not act on this recommendation. In the year 1966 the petitioner made an application through proper channel for obtaining a copy of the Prospectus and application form from the College of Nursing, Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh and he had sent a copy of this application in advance to the Institute. THE application was, however, returned to the petitioner by D. M. & H. S. with the endorsement that no such applications were invited by the Directorate and further there was no provision for the males to be absorbed gainfully after the completion of the course, as the posts in the College of Nursing were meant to be filled in by females and there were already many sisters and sister tutors in the Department who were senior to the petitioner. THE petitioner was told that he might apply as and when such applications were invited. THE petitioner asserts that in the year 1966 the D. M. & H. S. issued a circular inviting applications for Interalia Scholarship lor the taking of advance course B. s. c, (Nursing) Post Basic Degree course outside India. THE petitioner submits that he had made an application for this purpose, but at the same time he brought it to the notice of the D. M. & H. S. that the same course was available in India at Chandigarh. This he had done, because, according to him, it was mentioned in the circular that if this course is available in India then the studies should be undertaken in India itself. On 18-4-66, the D. M. & H. S. informed the petitioner that his application for training abroad had been recommended to the Government. In reply to the D. M. & H. S's letter the petitioner wrote him to say that it would be better if the petitioner is allowed to take the B. Sc. in Nursing (Post Basic Training Course) at the College of Nursing, Post Graduate Institute' Chandigarh. He added that on the completion of the course the petitioner's services could gainfully be utilised by the Deptt. He further pointed out that persons junior to him had been afforded the same facilities Simultaneously the petitioner made an application through proper channel with an advance copy to the Institute for being granted admission to the Institute on 16-5-66 the Institute desired the Medical Supdt. M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur to give a clearance certificate for the petitioner as without such a certificate the petitioner would not be allowed a seat in the College for the aforesaid course. On receipt of this communication the Principal of the Medical College and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals at Jodhpur moved the D. M. & H. S. for issuing the clearance certificate for the petitioner. THE petitioner then appeared before the D M. &h. S. and explained his case to him. THE D. M. & H. S. then gave a clearance certificate to the petitioner. THE petitioner takes the stand that this action of the D. M. & H. S. was confirmed by the Government on 5-7-66 (vide Ex. 6 ). Having obtained the clearance certificate the petitioner joined the course at Chandigarh in July, 1966 and successfully completed it on 11-6-68. While the petitioner was studying at Chandigarh, the D. M. & H. S. took the question of granting study leave to the petitioner and after some correspondence between the D. M. & H. S. and the Accountant General the petitioner was granted study leave. Side by side the petitioner moved the Government for treating him on deputation and on duty while he was studying at Chandigarh vide his application Ex. 10. THE D. M. & H. S. recommended the petitioner's case for being treated on deputation and on duty for the period of his course at Chandigarh. THE recommendation of the D. M. & H. S. was, however, not accepted by the Government who refused to treat the petitioner on deputation but treated him on leave during the period of his study. THE petitioner repeated his request, but without any success. THE petitioner contends that in refusing to treat him on deputation the Government had meted out a discriminatory treatment to him inasmuch as in a similar case of one Shri Ram Swaroop, about which I will say further in the course of discussion, they had given him the benefit of deputation while he was studying a similar course in Triven-drum in 1964. Besides the case of Ram Swaroop the petitioner avers that several other persons namely, one Shri Ramsingh Sharma, Auxiliary Health Worker, who had undertaken the studies for M. B. B S. Course on his own expenses and One Shri Ram Avtar Mehta who took the Sister Tutor's course in 1967 were treated on deputation and duty. Thus, according to the petitioner, the Government action was discriminatory and thus violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate submitted an affidavit on 19-8-74 wherein it was stated that certain persons were appointed on part-time basis in the Nursing College at Jaipur though they were not fully qualified, as there was dearth of trained Nursing personnel. About the case of Shri Ram Singh it was stated in the affidavit that he was an Auxiliary Health Worker and was selected for the M. B. B. S. course and the benefit of deputation was allowed to him to encourage people in the lower cadres. As regards the case of Shri Ramavtar Mehta, who was sent on deputation for the Sister Tutor course at Delhi, it was stated that this was done because the Government of India provided central assistance for opening Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Centres under Family Planning Programme with cent percent assistance and it was for this reason that the necessity for trained Sister Tutors was felt and accordingly Shri Ram Avtar Mehta was sent on deputation for his training.