Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 10 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010048202022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1750/2022
DR. TAUHIDUL ISLAM LASKAR AND 2 ORS.
S/O- LATE RAJAK ALI LASKAR, R/O- VILL.- SONABARIGHAT, P.O.
SONABARIGHAT, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788013.
2: DR. MOHAMMAD AHMED HUSSAIN
S/O- MD. JAMSED MOMIN
R/O- VILL.- NEPAL PARA BAZAR
P.O. SERFANGURI BAZAR
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783346.
3: DR. BABUL DEBNATH
S/O- PRAKASH DEBNATH
R/O- VILL.- HARMOT
CHANDMARI
CHANDMARI
P.O. MERBIL
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784160
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ASSAM
SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-36
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
10.03.2022
Heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.
Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D.P. Borah, learned Standing
Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department for the State respondents.
The petitioners before this Court are doctors working under the State Health
Services in Assam. Presently counselling is going on in Assam to fill post graduate
seats in the Medical colleges of the State. Under the Rules presently applicable, 23
seats are reserved for doctors who are in State Health Services. This Court has been
informed that though the petitioners are members of the State Health Services, their
candidature is not being considered against the posts reserved under the State Health
Quota as the petitioners have done their M.B.B.S. from a medical college outside the
State of Assam, though recognized by MCI.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the fact that the
petitioners have done their MBBS from a medical college outside the State of Assam is
not a relevant factor for the purposes of the present case and the only relevant factor
would be whether the petitioners are serving as doctors under the State Medical
Services and fulfill the qualifications for being considered under the State Health
Page No.# 3/4
Quota. As per Rule 4(4)(i) of the Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission to
Post-Graduate Courses) Rules, 2006 for being considered against 23 seats under the
State Health Quota, a doctor must have completed five years or more of service in a
rural area apart from being a permanent resident of the State of Assam. There is no
dispute that the petitioners have completed five years of service in rural and remote
areas and are permanent residents of Assam. Merely because they have done their
MBBS from a medical college outside Assam will therefore not be a relevant
consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Saurabh Dwivedi v. Union of India , reported in (2017) 7 SCC 626,
where a similar distinction between the doctors who had done MBBS from the
State and those who have done MBBS from medical colleges outside the State
was held to be an artificial distinction. In Paragraph-14 of the judgment, it was
stated as under:
"14. The aforesaid Circular dated 23-12-2016 clearly mentions that
benefit of Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations shall be available to medical
officers belonging to PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult
areas. No distinction has been made between those who have graduated from
within the State of U.P. or those who have graduated from outside the State of
U.P. Once the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified their MBBS/BDS
examination from within the State of U.P. or from any other part of the country,
are selected and join the medical health service in the State of U.P., they form
part of one service i.e. PMHS. Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to
remote or difficult areas they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the
basis as to which State they have done their graduation from. We, therefore,
see no reason as to why the benefit of weightage in terms of Regulation 9(IV)
should be limited to those in-service candidates of PMHS category, who have
graduated from within the State of U.P. This is a totally artificial distinction
drawn up by the High Court. In fact, the State of U.P. had also not made any
such distinction and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary was categorical that the
2000 Regulations had not created such a divide or distinction."
We are also of the view that once a doctor has joined State Health Services,
he/she becomes a part of the State Health Services and will get benefit which is there
Page No.# 4/4
for the candidates belonging to State Health Services, provided he/she fulfills other
relevant criteria such as he/she should be a permanent resident etc. The fact that
such a doctor has done MBBS from outside medical college and not from Assam would
not be a relevant consideration.
In view of what we have stated above, we now direct that the petitioners'
candidature under the State Health Quota (SHQ) shall not be rejected simply for the
reason that they have done their MBBS from a medical college outside the State of
Assam, but their candidature shall be considered under the State Health Quota,
provided they fulfill other criteria such as permanent residents, etc.
List again on 23.03.2022.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
