29 Jan 2022 3:57 AM GMT
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by several doctors directing the respondent authorities to consider their experience of service in Government hospitals of remote and difficult areas till 31.10.2021, instead of 30.09.2021. Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The policy of the State is to grant incentive. No candidate has...
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by several doctors directing the respondent authorities to consider their experience of service in Government hospitals of remote and difficult areas till 31.10.2021, instead of 30.09.2021.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The policy of the State is to grant incentive. No candidate has a vested right to claim such incentives, that too dehors the State policy. Such cut off date cannot be kept fluctuating. The date of counselling would depend on several factors. The suggestion that experience gained by the candidate right till the first date of counseling is therefore not acceptable. There is yet another angle to this issue."
The court opined that grant of incentive itself is a policy matter and based on the discretion of State authorities and any extension for considering the experience is also part of such discretionary exercise of the powers. The court added that unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this Court would not interfere in such policy matters.
The court pursued the State's policy and observed that the incentive is granted to ensure sufficient numbers of doctors are available to serve in remote areas and that such doctors don't suffer in their preparations of PG medical entrance examinations.
Refusing to interfere in the prescribed cut-off date, the court remarked that once examination is over, the candidate cannot complain of being disadvantaged in making the preparations as compared to the other candidates.
Essentially, the appellants are doctors serving in the Rajasthan State services and they have been posted in remote areas. The State policy recognises graded incentive marks for such doctors for the purpose of giving admissions in postgraduate medical courses. Such experience has to be reckoned as gained by them upto 30.09.2021 for the current process of admissions in PG medical courses. They have a dispute with this cut off date.
Appellants' grievance is that such a cut off date should be shifted to 31.10.2021. In this regard, they filed the writ petition in which the prayer made is to direct the respondent authorities to consider their experience of service in Government hospitals till 31.10.2021. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions upon which these appeals have been filed.
The counsel for the appellants submitted that in the present year due to a variety of reasons the process of admission in PG medical courses has been delayed and in view of this, the State Government itself has shifted the date for considering experience from originally declared which was 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021.
He argued that the Government did not consider delayed admission process, and as per past practice, the first date of counselling should ideally be the date upto which the experience should be seen. He contended that while ignoring such facts, the State Government has refused to extend the last date of 30.09.2021 for considering the experience of in-service doctors.
The Government Advocate opposed the appeals contending that it is the question of policy decision of the State Government and was taken after due consideration. He added that thereafter, there was no further reason to extend the time. He further argued that the petitioners have no vested right to insist that such incentive must be granted upto the date of counselling.
Adv. Yash Pal Khileree with Adv. D.S. Beniwal appeared for the appellants, while Adv. Angad Mirdha, Adv. Harshal Tholia on behalf of AAG Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment