B JOSEPH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution the validity of some appointments to the Clinical Wing and the fixation of seniority under the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been challenged. The validity of some of Rules has also been challenged. All the three writ petitions have been contested on behalf of the State and on behalf of some of the respondents. They were heard together and the material on record in one writ petition was also read in the other writ petitions with the consent of the parties.

(2.) UP to the year 1959 there was only one Medical College in the State namely the Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur. Two new colleges namely the Sardar Patel Medical College Bikaner and the Ravindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur, were started in 1959 and 1961 respectively. Teaching in the Clinical Wing was imparted mostly by the members of the Medical Service of Rajasthan in these colleges till the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1962 came into force with effect from November 5, 1962. These teachers were designated as part-time Professors, Readers and Lecturers.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners rule 5 (1) has been challenged on the ground that it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution for the following reasons: (1) Clause (i) There is no reasonable basis for classifying doctors already working as Professors and Readers into a separate class for which neither the qualifications prescribed by the University were insisted upon nor was any screening provided. (2) Clause (ii) - There is no reasonable basis for classifying Lecturers into two classes - those who had worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years upto 1. 10. 61 and those who had not so worked. The date 1. 10. 61 bears no relationship to the object to be achieved by the Rules. There is no reasonable basis for not prescribing for them minimum qualifications in accordance with the University Ordinance and for not subjecting them to screening as has been done in the case of doctors falling under rule 5 (l) (iii ). (3) Clause (iii) - Although the rules prescribe for screening by a Committee no principles for the guidance of the Screening Committee have been laid down for assessing the merits of the candidates and there is no provision for co-opting experts in various specialities, candidates for which were to be screened by the Committee. As such arbitrary and unfettered powers have been given to the Screening Committee.