Dr. Ranjan Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11475 Raj

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6312/2022

Dr. Ranjan Mathur S/o Dr Om Prakash Mathur, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 26/2/3 Rare, Opposite Chanakya Hotel And Bhram
Kumari Ashram, Sadul Gunj, Bikaner (Raj.).    ---Petitioner


                                   Versus
 1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
 2.      Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health
         Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
 3.      Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Group-I),
         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
 4.      Director (Ph), Medical And Health Services, Government
         Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)                            ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Rajeev Purohit, Adv.
                               Mr. Sourabh Kant Vyas, Adv.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
                               Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                                Judgment
PRONOUNCED ON                          :::                       15/09/2022

RESERVED ON                            :::                       06/09/2022


BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

The petitioner, who is a Medical Teacher (Dental) has filed

the present writ petition challenging the vires of Rule 56 of

Rajasthan Civil Services Rules 1951 as amended vide notification

dated 30.03.2018, whereby the age of superannuation has been

increased from 62 years to 65 years only for Medical Teachers

holding MBBS degree.

(2 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of writ petition are as

follows:

The petitioner acquired qualification of BDS and MDS in the

years 1987 and 1991 respectively from King George's Medical

College, Lucknow. After being declared successful in the selection

process in the Department of Medical and Health Services,

Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner was appointed as

Assistant Professor on 10.03.1993. On 27.06.1999, the petitioner

was promoted on the recommendations of DPC to the post of

Associate Professor and he served at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner

and Govt. Medical College, Kota under orders of posting issued by

the department. The petitioner was further promoted to the post

of Professor on 31.03.2011 and thereafter, to the post of Senior

Professor on 01.04.2013. The petitioner is presently serving on

the post of Senior Professor and Head of Dentistry Department in

S.P. College, Bikaner. The Medical Teachers holding degree of

BDS/MDS and MBBS are promoted through same DPC and

assigned administrative responsibilities in the Department of

Medical/Dental Education. The State Government, vide notification

dated 30.03.2018 enhanced the age of superannuation of Medical

Teachers (Medicine) holding MBBS Degree from 62 years to 65

years. The petitioner being a Medical Teacher (Dental), BDS and

MDS degree holder was not extended the benefit of enhancement

of age of superannuation. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ

petition has been preferred before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajeev Purohit

submitted that the State Government, vide notification dated

30.03.2018 has unduly discriminated between the Medical

(3 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

Teachers, holding MBBS degree vis-a-vis those holding BDS

Degree. It was further submitted that the notification has

discriminated amongst two classes at par without rationale and in

contravention of provisions of Rajasthan Medical Services

(Collegiate) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of

1962'). The counsel also submitted that the Medical Teachers

holding degrees of MBBS and BDS are recruited through a

common mode of recruitment under the Rules of 1962 by the

Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Further, the promotions of

Medical Teachers both MBBS and BDS are carried out by a

common DPC. Therefore, there is no distinction between the

Medical Teachers holding degrees of MBBS & MD and those holding

degrees of BDS & MDS according to the Rules of 1962 be it in

terms of recruitment, appointment, promotions and conditions of

service along with service benefits. The counsel urged that by

excluding the Medical Teachers from the purview of increase in

age of superannuation, vide notification dated 30.03.2018 as

opposed the State Government has discriminated the petitioner

and his peers vis-a-vis the Medical Teachers holding MBBS degree

in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore,

a direction is required to read down the impugned notification and

to include the Medical Teachers holding degrees of BDS/MDS in its

ambit and purview. In support of his contentions, the counsel

placed reliance on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr.

Ramesh Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 540).

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents, Shri Manish Vyas, AAG and Shri Sudhir Tak, AAG

(4 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

argued that the State Government, vide notification dated

30.03.2018 increased the age of superannuation of Medical

Teachers, MBBS degree holders considering the fact that there is

dearth of said doctors in the State. It was further submitted that

the Medical Teachers holding MBBS degree and those holding BDS

degree constitute two distinct classes and therefore, the

notification dated 30.03.2018 cannot be said to be violative of

Article 14. The counsel thus urged that the notification dated

30.03.2018 may be upheld.

Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material

available on record.

The service conditions of Medical Teachers possessing MBBS

degree and BDS degree is governed by the Rules of 1962. The

Medical Teachers irrespective of their stream are required to

discharge similar duties. The respondents have not placed on

record any material which would justify the classification made by

them in formation of two separate classes among the employees

governed by the same service conditions and recruitment rules.

Since, statistics with regard to number of MBBS and Dental

Medical Teachers available with the department has not been

placed on record, it can safely be concluded that there is no

intelligble differentia for treating the Medical Teachers holding the

MBBS degrees and those holding BDS degree differently. On the

contrary, petitioner has placed on record various

documents/orders which reflect that in various services viz.

Railways, Defence (Civilian Doctors under Directorate General of

Armed Forces Medical Service) etc., a conscious decision has been

taken to enhance the age of superannuation of dental doctors

(5 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

from 62 years to 65 years so as to bring them at par with MBBS

doctors. The action of the respondents amounts to hostile

discrimination insofar as the dental doctors have been denied the

benefit of enhanced age of superannuation. The notification dated

30.03.2018, issued by the Government of Rajasthan is in clear

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Our view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Naresh Sharma

(supra) while dealing with the issue as to whether the AYUSH

doctors are entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age

of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just like the allopathic doctors

wherein it was held:

"23. The common contention of the appellants before us is that classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients. The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 extending the age of superannuation to 65 Years also endorses such a view. This extension is in tune with the notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016.

24. The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them.

(6 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent-doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion."

A co-ordinate bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions

led by the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State

of Rajasthan (D.B. C.W. No. 13496/2021) examining a similar

controversy held that action of the state in fixing age of

superannuation of AYUSH doctors lower in comparison to the

allopathic doctors amounts to hostile discrimination.

In the result of aforesaid discussion, the words- Medical

Teachers holding BDS/MDS degrees shall be read into the

notification dated 30.03.2018. Consequently, it is ordered that the

petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service upto the age of

65 years. The respondent authorities shall pass necessary orders

to continue Medical Teachers (Dental) in service till the age of 65

years with all consequential benefits. It is however made clear

that the Medical Teachers (Dental) who have already

superannuated shall not be entitled to claim reinstatement in

service.

The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to

costs.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    25-KshamaD/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)