CHANDRIKA CHETTRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having passed MBBS Examination, was appointed as Medical Officer under the Government of Sikkim, on 3-12-1982. She was promoted and posted as Acting District Medical Officer, West District, Geysing vide order dated 16-8-1991, which post she joined on 30-10-1991. Under an agreement dated 12-3-1992, which the Government of Sikkim, the Manipal Education and Medical Group, Manipal Karnataka, a registered trust, agreed to provide certain post-graduate seats in Kasturba Medical College, Manipal (KMC) to the students nominated by the Sikkim Government. KMC was supposed to provide 2 seats in preclinical, 2 seats in paraclinical and 2 seats in clinical post-graduate studies. The petitioner applied for post-graduate course in certain studies giving first preference in general medicine. A selection Committee constituted by the Government selected 12 candidates for the 6 seats including 4 candidates for general medicine falling in clinical group. The name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 3 amongst these four candidates. The petitioner and others were directed to go to KMC for interview. Accordingly, the petitioner and others went to Manipal, but no interview held, and the candidates were merely required to fill up certain forms and submit their marksheets. Though KMC was supposed to provide two seats in clinical studies, yet vide letter dated 30/06/1992, they offered to provide two more seats in preclinical in place of two seats in clinical studies. Vide letter dated 27-7-1992, the Government insisted for two seats in clinical, as a result of which the college authorities agreed to provide the already agreed two seats in clinical (general medicine) studies. However, instead of the petitioner, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, viz. Dr. Padam Maya Chettri and Dr. Sarkey Bhuttia were nominated by the State Government for the general medicine seats. This was done because of the policy decision taken by the government on 7-8-1992 for not sending senior doctors like C.M.Os., D.M.Os., D.T.Os., etc., for post-graduate training so that hospital and district administration and programme implementation might not suffer. The policy statement runs as under:

(2.) The petitioner challenges her non-nomination and nomination of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. She contends that though she has been posted as Acting District Medical Officer, she has not received emoluments as District Medical Officer and is drawing her salary in the scale of the Medical Officer. She submits that respondent No.3 who has been selected is entrusted with very responsible job of immunisation of people in two districts and is holding the rank of District Medical Officer, and he was selected even though the Selection Committee did not select him and it was doubtful whether he had even made an application for nomination. According to her, once the Selection Committee was constituted, respondent No. 1. could not supersede the decision of such committee and could not change its previous policy to the detriment of the petitioner and others. Further, she has contended that it was on the direction of the government based on selection by the Selection Committee that the petitioner took strenuous and ardous journey for about ten days and spent a large amount of money and the travelling allowance would not commensurate with the troubles taken by her, and so the State is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. Further, her contention is that there is no reasonable ground why senior and experienced doctors should not undergo post-graduate courses in preference to junior and less experienced once, and the action of respondent No.1 in sending respondents No.2 and 3 for post-graduate studies is not based on any policy, and is arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) The State has averred in its counter-affidavit that there posts of District Medical Officers are lying vacant and they have to be filled up by promotion on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. For this purpose, the proposal for appointment of DMOs through promotion has to be sent to the Sikkim Public Service Commission and the process of promotion takes a considerable time. Therefore, in view of the urgent requirement of the services of DMOs, the government decided to fill these vacancies by promotion of General Duty Medical Officers as District Medical Officers on acting capacity and, accordingly, the petitioner joined as Acting District Medical Officer on 30-10-1991. It is denied that respondent No. 3 did not make any application. Copies of the applications made by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have been enclosed as Annexure R2 and R3 to the counter-affidavit. It is also denied that respondent No. 3 was appointed District Medical Child Health or District Immunisation Officer of South and West Districts, and it is said that he was temporarily entrusted with the work of DMCH and DIO which he was discharging in addition to his usual work. As regards policy, the stand of the government is that this being the first batch of government doctors being sent for post graduate courses to KMC, under an agreement, the government had not formulated any policy or guidelines earlier. However, the government was compelled to formulate policy guidelines for selection of candidates for in-service post-graduate training on 7-8-92 due to the difficulties felt in hospital administration and national health programme implementation when 12 doctors were sent to KMC for interview. In reply to the plea of promissory estoppel, it is pleaded that the government had simply selected 12 doctors against 6 MD seats in various disciplines in KMC, Manipal leaving the final selection to KMC Management and so the petitioner could not have been certain about her selection by KMC for undergoing the course. To repeal the charge of arbitrariness, it is alleged that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were nominated as per order of merit, seniority and subject preference of medical officers who had applied for undergoing the course and who had not been disqualified under the new policy. It is denied that respondents No. 3 is in the rank of District Medical Officer.