Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Vijay Laxmi D/O Shri P.M. Sain vs The State Of Rajasthan Through ... on 18 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 216/2018
1. Dr. Vijay Laxmi D/o Shri P.m. Sain, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o B-20, Bajaj Nagar Apartment, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Dr. Shallu Gupta D/o Shri Ram Kishore Gupta, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of 550, Devi Nagar, Lane Number-3,
New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Finance
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Principal And Controller, Sms Medical College, Jaipur.
3. The Principal And Controller, Snmc Medical College,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Principal Secretary To Government, Medical Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
5. Manisha Sankhla, D/o Mr. Ram Singh, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of A-78, Ekta Marg, Girnar Colony,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
6. Dr.priyanka Meena, W/o Dr Mohan Meena, Aged About 39
Years, R/o D-401, Trimurti Ariana Apartment, Ram
Nagria, Jagatpura, Jaipur - 302017.
7. Dr.kavita Yadav, Wife Of Dr. Yogesh Yadav, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of 18 Ganesh Vihar, Jaipur Road, Chomu,
Rajasthan.
8. Dr. Ritu Gupta W/o Shri Dheeraj Khandelwal, Aged About
32 Years, C/o Sohan Choudhary, 196, C-Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Dr. Rajini D/o Mr. Ramnath, Aged About 38 Years, House
No.8, Anu Sadan, Lane No.5, Vijay Nagar Colony, Bhagat
Kothi, New Pali Jodhpur -342005 Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
(2 of 4) [WRW-216/2018]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
18/11/2021
D.B.Civil Misc. Application No.814/2018:-
For the reasons stated in the application and those made out
before us during the course of arguments, delay in filing the
review petition is condoned. The application is allowed and
disposed of.
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 216/2018:-
This review petition is filed by the original petitioner seeking
recall and review of the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 05.05.2018 in Writ Petition No.12979/2015.
Brief facts are that the petitioners were selected and
appointed to the post of Senior Demonstrator. The post recognized
two different qualifications as essential qualifications namely M.Sc.
(Medicine) and MBBS degree holder. The petitioners belong to
M.Sc. stream. The advertisement prescribed two years of
probation for all selected candidates. After the petitioners and
other candidates holding the qualification of MBBS degree were
selected in the same selection process and appointed, the State
Government issued a Notification dated 03.07.2014 and reduced
the period of probation for MBBS degree holders to one year
whereas the original period of two years probation for M.Sc.
degree holders was maintained. This gave rise to the challenge to
the said notification dated 03.07.2014 at the hands of the
petitioners. The petition came to be dismissed by the said
judgment dated 05.05.2018 in which following observations have
been made:-
(3 of 4) [WRW-216/2018]
"If the consideration is made in reference to the
qualification, it would come out that the petitioners are
not similarly placed. They are holding qualification of
M.Sc. which is not four years' course but of lesser
duration, whereas, MBBS degree holders undergo four and
half years' course and one year's compulsory internship
and taking into consideration the aforesaid, the period of
probation for them has been curtailed. Taking into
consideration the different qualifications and the period for
studies, it cannot be said that the petitioners are similarly
situated. It is apart from the fact that curtailment of
period of probation is in reference of the period of
compulsory internship of one year. The MBBS candidates
tender service during the period of internship, rather, as
per the reply given by the respondents, they need to give
service beyond normal working hours and, at times, round
the clock. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find that
the Notification has caused discrimination between
similarly situated candidates.
It is further to be noted that a challenge to the
Notification dated 03rd July, 2014 has been made and if it
is struck down, the consequence would be to deny benefit
of regular pay scale to the MBBS degree holders after one
year, however, none has been impleaded as party
respondent though their rights would be affected. In view
of the above, the petition suffers from non-joinder of
necessary parties."
Learned counsel for the review petitioners vehemently
contended that the probation period for MBBS degree holder
appointees was reduced from two years to one year after the
selection and appointments. This has resulted into great injustice
and loss to the petitioners since the MBBS degree holder
appointees would start drawing salary in a regular scale sooner
than the petitioners. The petitioners would thus draw less pay
than the MBBS degree holders even though they have been
ranked below the petitioners in the merit list. This would also have
consequential effect on their seniority.
A perusal of order under review would however show that
the State policy was upheld on the ground that M.Sc. is a four
years course whereas MBBS degree course requires training of 4-
1/2 years followed by one year of internship. Moreover, during the
(4 of 4) [WRW-216/2018]
internship the MBBS candidates also render service and they need
to work beyond the normal duty hours. The Division Bench
therefore was of the opinion that the notification in question does
not discriminate between similarly situated persons. In other
words according to the Division Bench the petitioners and M.Sc.
degree holders and MBBS degree holders did not form a common
class. Additionally, it was also noted that none of the MBBS degree
holder appointees were joined as respondents. If the prayer of the
petitioners was allowed, these candidates would be directly
affected.
In our view, the scope of review of a judgment is very
narrow and confines to limited jurisdiction which can be exercised
on an error of law or the fact apparent on the record being
demonstrated. Within this narrow confine, it is not possible to
entertain this review petition. The Division Bench has examined
the distinction between the two streams of candidates who were
appointed to the post of Senior Demonstrator. The Division Bench
was influenced by the fact that MBBS degree course entails much
longer training period than the M.Sc. degree course. Internship
period involves rigorous work. The candidates likely to be affected
by outcome of the petition were also not joined as respondents.
We do not find any error of law apparent on record.
The review petition is dismissed. Pending applications do not
survive and are accordingly disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/N. GANDHI/24
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
