CHITRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of 18 writ petitions agitates a common issue, and is hence, with consent of counsel appearing for the parties, being considered and decided by this common order. The facts of SBCWP No. 3908/2019, Dr. Chitra Pandey and Karishma Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and others, will be adverted to for the purpose of adjudication of the issue agitated.

(2.) Under challenge is the circular dtd. 10/8/2018, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Medical Education to the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and attached Hospital, Jaipur on the matter of appointment of Senior Residents.

(3.) The petitioners Chitra Pandey and Karishma Goyal were appointed as Senior Residents (Eyes) along with 7 others in various branches of Medicine by the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and Hospital Jaipur for a period of one year or till further orders purely on temporary basis. The petitioners joined to the posts, to which they were appointed, without any demur or objection pertaining to the tenure of one year or till passing of further order. The case now set up before this court by them is that the circular dtd. 10/8/2018, providing that Senior Residents, who complete the tenure of one year as per their appointment order/s, would be required to participate afresh in the process for selection as Senior Resident and be permitted, if selected afresh, to continue thereafter for only an aggregate total period of three years. The petitioners' case is that the circular dtd. 10/8/2018 is in the cross hairs of the Office Memorandum dtd. 11/3/1975 issued by the Central Government on the subject and the issue of "Residency scheme extension of tenure in respect of Senior Residents". It has been submitted that the aforesaid circular dtd. 10/8/2018 impliedly mandated a three year tenure for all Senior Residents. To buttress the aforesaid submission it has been pointed out that earlier the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur used to advertised for appointment of Senior Residents upto a maximum period of three year with the intent that the initial temporary appointment of Senior Residents on one year tenure would be extended, except for very good reason, upto a period of three years as such three years experience on the said post would render the Senior Resident eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor etc. in the All India Medical Institutes as well as post Graduate Institutes of Medical Research Center Chandigarh (PGI Chandigarh). It has been submitted that the impugned circular dtd. 10/8/2018 arbitrarily negates the earlier practice of the State Government to the detriment of the petitioners, who, if not allowed to have a tenure of three years as Senior Residents, would be rendered ineligible, on count of lack of three years experience to apply for the post of Assistant Professors in All India Institutes/PGI Chandigarh. It has been submitted that hence, albeit the petitioners were indeed appointed as Senior Residents on temporary basis for a tenure of one year or till further orders vide appointment order dtd. 15/3/2017, they have a legitimate expectation that their appointment would be extended upto a period of three years. Moreso, as the petitioners have discharged the responsibilities of their assignment with due diligence and without any complaint. It has also been submitted that denying the petitioners extension as Senior Resident upto three years as per past practice and in some cases even currently is wholly arbitrary as also discriminatory and hence violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.