Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.@mdashThe petitioners, who are PCMS Medical Officers, challenge the classification provided under Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Government Notification dated 5.4.2013 contained in part B of the prospectus (Annexure P-4), as (i) people who have completed 5 years of service, and (ii) who have less than 5 years of service, as unreasonable and artificial classification, for the purpose of admission to the Post Graduate M.D./M.S./Diploma courses. Shorn of the detailed background, it would suffice to note only those relevant facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition. Petitioners are serving as PCMS doctors in the respondent State. The details of their length of service is appended as Annexure P-1. Some of the petitioners joined the services in the months of July/October/November/December, 2009 and others joined in March, 2011. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that since they are regular PCMS Officers, putting them in two categories, namely (i) who have completed 5 years of service and (ii) who have not completed 5 years of service as on 1.1.2012, was arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further pleaded that policy of the State was irrational.
2. With grievances noted above, petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the offending part of Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is also sought directing the respondent authorities, to treat the petitioners-PCMS doctors, as eligible for admission under 60% quota for the Post Graduate M.D./M.S./Diploma courses, despite they have not completed 5 years of service.
3. Relying upon the pleadings, referred to here-in-above, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that categorisation under Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification was, on the face of it, arbitrary and unreasonable. He further submits that there was no nexus between the classification and object sought to be achieved. He next contended that second part of the Clause makes the first part redundant. Since no appointments of PCMS doctors were made from 1998 to July, 2009 way of direct recruitment, offending part of Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification was arbitrary thereby ousting the petitioners from the zone of consideration in the 60% quota, meant for PCMS in-service doctors for Post Graduate M.D./M.S./Diploma Courses, causing serious prejudice to them. It is the further pleaded and argued case of the petitioners that there was only about 15 PCMS doctors from 1998 batch who would be eligible for admission. Thus, out of total 70 seats available for 60% category meant for PCMS in-service candidates, 55 seats will remain unfilled from this category and will have to be transferred to the category of 40%. If the criteria of 2/3 years of service in more difficult/difficult areas respectively is applied uniformly, all the petitioners would become eligible for admission in the 60% quota, meant for PCMS in service doctors. Learned senior counsel concluded by submitting the since the action of the respondent State, while making the above said impugned classification, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it was liable to be set aside.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and on perusal of the record of the case, particularly Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification (Annexure P-4), this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived and does not call for any interference, at the hands of this Court, for more than one following reasons.
5. Since the issue involved herein revolves around clause 14 of the notification dated 5.4.2013 contained in Part-B of the prospectus, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part thereof and the same reads as under:-
14. (I) Government Institution (Government Medical College Amritsar and Patiala, G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot; Government Dental College Patiala and Amritsar.
In the Government institutions, 50% of the total seats in every such institution shall be filled by the Government of India at all India level through NEETPG-2013. The remaining seats shall be filled through NEET-PG at State Level from amongst candidates having Punjab resident status. Out of the remaining seats, 60% seats shall be filled up from amongst the eligible PCMS/PCMS (Dental)/PDES in service doctors and 40% shall be open to all eligible medical/dental graduates.
A. For 60% Seats in Post Graduate Degree for PCMS/PCMS (Dental)/PDES.
The Eligibility to 60% quota candidates will be as per letters of Deptt. of Health and Family Welfare Endst. No. 26/12/94-5HB2/795-805 dated 31.01.2011; and Memo No. 26/12/94-5HB2/4456-58 dated 17.07.2012 No. 2/149/12-1HBI/7260-77 dated 13-09-2012 and any other notification issued from time to time.
a) The eligibility requirements are as under:
(i) Regular PCMS employee; and
(ii) Have completed four years'' service in very difficult (Category D) area or six year service in difficult (Category C) or on appropriate combination of both and in case of candidates who have completed 5 year of service as on 01-01-2012, they should have completed 2 years of service in most difficult areas or 3 years of service in difficult areas; and RMO once they are selected in PCMS, they will be given benefits of rural service rendered by them as RMO''s under Zila Parishads.
(iii) Have cleared the probation period; and
(iv) Whose service record is good; and
(v) After completion of Post Graduate Course have minimum of 10 years'' service left; and
(vi) There is no vigilance/departmental/disciplinary inquiry pending against the employee.
b) The period of rural service shall be computed as on March 31st of corresponding year.
6. It is undisputed that the petitioners have not completed either four years of service in very difficult area (category D) or six years of service in difficult area (category C) or an appropriate combination of both. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the candidates who have completed 5 years of service as on 1.1.2012, however, they claim that they have completed either two years of service in most difficult areas or 3 years of service in difficult areas. Thus, they should have been treated as eligible PCMS in-service doctors. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that since after 1998 to July, 2009 no direct recruitment was made by the respondent State, there was no scope for the petitioners to complete 5 years of service as on 1.1.2012. Considering this argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and testing it from any angle, it has been found to be misplaced and without any force.
7. Further, the classification made by the respondent State is, on the face of it, reasonable and justified. The object sought to be achieved is that PCMS doctors should not be averse from serving in the rural areas, so as to ensure that basic medical services are provided in rural areas, as well. Learned senior counsel did not put into service any such argument which may point out any element of arbitrariness, at the hands of the respondent State, while making the impugned classification under Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the object sought to be achieved, while providing minimum 5 years of service as on 1.1.2012 out of which, 2/3 years of service in most difficult/difficult areas respectively, was to motivate the PCMS doctors to serve in the rural areas, so that the citizens of the rural areas are not left without proper health services. This Court see no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in this regard.
8. The apprehension of the petitioners that 55 seats out of 70 seats, meant for PCMS in-service doctors, may not go waste, is also without any basis. Whatever number of seats out of 70 seats which will not be filled up from amongst eligible PCMS in-service doctors, would be transferred to the 40% quota and the petitioners will also be entitled for admission in that category, however, as per their merit. Thus, this apprehension of the petitioners has been found to be misplaced.
9. So far as the impugned classification is concerned, a conjoint reading of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that although class legislation is forbidden, yet reasonable classification is not forbidden. Further, whenever any rule or statutory provision is assailed on the touchstone of Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. First test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned rules or statutory provisions.
10. It goes without saying that there must be some rational nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Statute or Rule. As noticed here-in-above, impugned Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification is based on intelligible differentia, which clearly distinguishes the persons (PCMS doctors herein) who have completed 5 years as on 1.1.2012, from others who have not completed 5 years of service as on 1.1.2012. Thus, the first test gets satisfied. Similarly, differentia in question has unambiguous nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. to provide the adequate medical services to the citizens living in rural areas. Hence the second test also gets satisfied. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that there is rational nexus between the impugned classification and the object sought to be achieved. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that neither classification provided under Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification, reproduced here-in-above, is unreasonable nor arbitrary.
11. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
The central test for permissible classification has to satisfy two conditions. It must be found on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or premises that are grouped together from others left out of the groups and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act in question. A law based on a permissible classification fulfills the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws and is valid whereas a law based on an impermissible classification violates the guarantee and is void. Equality is violated by treating persons similarly situated differently. In the present case, as stated above, that is not the case. If a law deals equally with members of a well defined class, it is not open to challenge such a law on the ground of denial of equal protection. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the court can take into consideration matters of common knowledge and, at the same time, the court must presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people.
12. Even the Medical Council of India has recognised granting of reasonable weightage for service rendered in rural areas. While dealing with somewhat similar issue, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
It is permissible to assign a reasonable weightage for service rendered in rural/tribal areas by in-service candidates for the purpose of determining inter se merit within the class of in-service candidates who have qualified in the Pre-PG test by securing the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the Medical Council of India.
13. Moreover, the issue involved herein pertains to the policy matter, which is the exclusive domain of the respondent-State, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, in the case of State of
The High Court has lost sight of the fact that education is a dynamic system and courses/subjects have to keep changing with regard to market demand, employability potential, availability of infrastructure, etc. No institute can have a legitimate right or expectation to run a particular course forever and it is the pervasive power and authority vested in the Government to frame policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate growth of the society and create balances in the arena inclusive of imparting technical education from time to time. Inasmuch as the institutions found fit were allowed to run other courses except the three mentioned above, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not disregarded by the State. Inasmuch as ultimately it is the responsibility of the State to provide good education, training and employment, it is best suited to frame a policy or either modify/alter a decision depending on the circumstance based on relevant and acceptable materials. The Courts do not substitute their views in the decision of the State Government with regard to policy matters. In fact, the Court must refuse to sit as appellate authority or super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation or policy decision of the Government unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution.
With regard to the importance of human resources, especially manpower requirement in various professional and technical fields, the Government is free to frame its policy, alter or modify the same as to the needs of the society. In such matters, the Courts cannot interfere lightly as if the Government is unaware of the situation.
14. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the irresistible conclusion is that the classification provided under Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Thus, it is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The classification aims at achieving a laudable object referred hereinabove.
15. Further, as observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the respondent State was well within its jurisdiction to take the policy decision, which is the basis of impugned Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification. It cannot be said that the respondent State was not aware about the classification of PCMS in-service candidates. There is no ambiguity in Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification. Therefore, it is held that Clause 14(1)A(a)(ii) of the Notification is based on reasonable classification.
16. No other argument was raised. Under the totality of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
