Tripura High Court
Dr. Sukomal Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 30 August, 2023
Page 1 of 14
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.194/2022
Dr. Sukomal Sarkar, S/O. Late Nirod Baran Sarkar, A resident of Melarmath,
Gangail Road, Agartala, P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001, P.S.-West Agartala,
District-West Tripura. Aged about 54 years.
.........Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, through the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Health & Family Welfare Department, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala,
P.O.-Agartala Secretariat-799010, West Tripura.
2. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Health & Family
Welfare Department, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, P.O.-Agartala
Secretariat-799010, West Tripura.
3. The Director of Medical Education, Government of Tripura, Bidur Karta
Chowmohani, Agartala, P.O.-Agartala-799001, P.S.-West Agartala, District-
West Tripura.
4. The Principal, Agartala Government Medical College & GBP Hospital, P.O.-
Kunjaban-799006, P.S.-New Capital Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura.
5. Dr. Dipen Roy, S/O. Shri Dilip Roy, A resident of Akhaura Road, Near
Tripura Times Office, Agartala, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-
West Tripura.
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Advocate,
Ms. Ankita Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Ms. R. Guha, Advocate,
Ms. Sudipa Nath, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of hearing and judgment: 30th August, 2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.
Page 2 of 14
Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State
respondents and Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent No.5.
2. By the impugned reasoned order dated 04.10.2021 passed in
pursuance to the directions rendered in case No. WP(C) No.434 of 2021, the
respondent-competent authority under the Department of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of Tripura has rejected the representation of the
petitioner regarding regularization in the post of Registrar, Department of
Orthopaedics, Agartala Government Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital,
Agartala. Petitioner had assailed the notification dated 12.09.2017 so far as it
related to the absorption of the private respondent No.5 as Basic Teacher
(Tutor/Senior Resident/Registrar) in Agartala Government Medical College &
G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala alleging deprivation of the chances of the petitioner.
Petitioner had also prayed for commanding the respondents to absorb him in
the post of Basic Teacher, i.e. Registrar/Tutor in the Department of
Orthopaedics, Agartala Government Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital,
Agartala in regular capacity from the initial date of his engagement, i.e.
16.02.2012 and to release the arrears of allowances @ Rs.3,000/-.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired the qualification
of M.S. in Orthopaedics and was declared as a full time Registrar/Tutor while
working on the post of Medical Officer in Tripura Health Service vide
notification dated 16.02.2012 (Annexure-2) issued in the name of the Governor
of Tripura. However, he has not been absorbed/regularized in the Agartala
Government Medical College and G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala though respondent
Page 3 of 14
No.5 who is only a diploma holder in Orthopaedics has been regularized as
such. Another junior doctor Anupam Debnath has been appointed to the
superior post of Assistant Professor ignoring the eligibility of the petitioner but
the said person has not been impleaded as a party. Petitioner had approached
this Court in WP(C) No.434 of 2021 which was disposed at the stage of motion
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within a period
of 3(three) months. However, by the impugned order dated 04.10.2021 the
representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner had once again
approached this Court in another writ petition but the same was withdrawn on
15.12.2021 as some additional information were to be furnished in support of
his case. Pursuant to the liberty granted therein, he has filed the present writ
petition.
4. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. P.
Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner has obtained the qualification of M.S. in Orthopaedics in 2011, i.e. a
higher qualification than the private respondent who was only a diploma in
Orthopaedics obtained in the year 2001. As such, petitioner has a better case
for being considered for regularization in the Department of Orthopaedics in
the Medical College. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits
that petitioner after having been appointed as a full time Registrar/Tutor in the
Department of Orthopaedics vide Annexure-2 dated 16.02.20212 should be
treated as regularized and absorbed in the Tripura Medical Education Service
in terms of the Tripura Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Service
Conditions Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2015"), since
Page 4 of 14
he was absorbed in the Medical College from 2012. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that petitioner was posted at various places
after his appointment as a full time Registrar/Tutor in the Agartala Government
Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital for considerable period between 2012 to
2016. It is submitted that the petitioner was sent on deputation to Tripura
Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura w.e.f. 26.09.2012 vide
order dated 24.09.2012 issued by the Director of Health Services, Government
of Tripura (Annexure-A/5 to the counter affidavit of respondent No.5). The
order of deputation itself means that the petitioner was absorbed in the Medical
College and, therefore, could be sent for deputation only to any other hospital.
In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others vrs. Inder
Singh & others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 372 (paragraph-18). It is submitted
that petitioner returned from deputation to the Agartala Government Medical
College & G.B.P. Hospital vide order dated 08.09.2016 (Annexure-A/6 to the
counter affidavit of respondent No.5). It is, however, not in dispute that the
petitioner did not submit his option for being absorbed in the Tripura Medical
Education Service in terms of the Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 2015 notified on
04.08.2015 (Annexure-A/1 to the counter of respondent No.5) and brought into
force w.e.f. the date of publication in the Official Gazette, i.e. 21.09.2015.
However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an
expert in knee replacement and his services should be better utilized in the
Medical College and Hospital both for teaching purposes as also for treatment
of the inhabitants of the State in a specialized hospital, like AGMC & GBP
Hospital which is in the capital of the State. It is further submitted that the
Page 5 of 14
regularization of respondent No.5 is not proper in the eye of law. If the services
of the petitioner are regularized in the Tripura Medical Education Service, no
additional burden would be cast upon the State.
5. Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State respondents and Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel
appearing for the private respondent No.5 have opposed the prayer. The
respondents-State has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the
petitioner is not similarly situated with others who had exercised their option
and have been absorbed as Basic Teacher/Registrar in the Department of
Orthopaedics, AGMC & GBP Hospital in terms of the Rules of 2015. The
qualification of the petitioner and the private respondent have also been
referred to in paragraph-13. It is submitted that the competent authority has
taken into account that in the seniority list of 2009, the private respondent who
had obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopaedics in the year 2001 was
senior to the petitioner who was only MBBS till 2010 and had obtained the
M.S. qualification in Orthopaedics in 2011. The other Dr. Anupam Debnath
has not been made a party in the writ petition and as such, any averments made
as against him need not be rebutted on the part of the State. Petitioner has also
not questioned the status of the other person Dr. Anupam Debnath as petitioner
is interested only on the post of Registrar/Tutor in Orthopaedics in the Medical
College.
6. Respondent No.5 has filed a counter affidavit and also an
additional counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits
that petitioner has failed to exercise the option to join the Tripura Medical
Page 6 of 14
Education Service in view of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 2015 framed by
notification dated 04.08.2015. It is further submitted that the exercise of option
was further extended by the notification dated 11.05.2017 pursuant to the
Tripura Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Service Conditions
Rules, 2015, (1st Amendment) Rules, 2016. However, the reasoned order itself
indicates that petitioner did not submit the option form for absorption under
Tripura Medical Education Service from Tripura Health Service within the
stipulated period. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner, therefore, is
not tenable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the Tripura Medical
Education Service Rules were framed for the first time in the year 2015 and as
such, the contention of the petitioner that he was already absorbed in the
Medical Education Service vide Annexure-2 dated 16.02.2012 is misconceived.
As such, the impugned order passed by the competent authority under the
respondent-department does not suffer from any error warranting interference
in writ jurisdiction.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials placed from the record and also the
Rules of 2015 (Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit of respondent No.5). It
appears from perusal of the notification dated 04.08.2015 published in the
gazette on 21.09.2015 that for the first time the Governor of Tripura, in
consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission, has been pleased to
frame the Rules of 2015 to regulate the method and conditions of the service
for persons appointed to the Tripura Government Medical Education
Page 7 of 14
(Administrative & Faculty) Services. The relevant part of the rules are
extracted hereunder:
"1. SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT:-
i. Short Title: These rules may be called the Tripura Medical Education
(Administrative & Faculty) Service conditions Rules, 2015.
ii. Commencement: They shall come into force with effect from the date
of their publication in the official gazette.
2. DEFINITION:
In these rules unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or
context:
(a) "Government" means the State Government of Tripura.
(b) "Commission" means the Tripura Public Service Commission.
(c) "Governor" means the Governor of Tripura.
(d) "Service" means the Tripura Medical Education Service
(Administrative & Faculty) service conditions.
(e) "Members of the service" means the Officers/ Faculties/ Doctors
appointed or deemed to have been appointed under the provisions of the rules.
(f) "Year" means the Calendar year.
(g) "MCI" means Medical Council of India.
(h) "Medical College" means Agartala Government Medical College,
Agartala.
(i) "Teaching Hospital" means Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital or
G.B.P. Hospital.
3. CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIPURA MEDICAL EDUCATION
(ADMINISTRATIVE & FACULTY) SERVICE CONDITIONS RULES
AND ITS CLASSIFICATION.
I. On and from the date of commencement of these rules, there shall be
a constituted Service to be known as the "Tripura Medical Education
(Administrative & Faculty) Service Conditions"
II. The service shall have two wings namely (a) administrative and (b)
faculties for Medical College and its attached Teaching Hospital.
a. The administrative wing shall consist of the following categories of
administrative posts in the Medical Education Directorate, Medical College
and Teaching Hospital of the Medical College.
Administrative Posts for Directorate of Medical Education, Medical
College & G.B.P. Teaching Hospital.
Administrative posts for the Directorate of Medical Education, Govt.
of Tripura.
Category-1: (a) Director of Medical Education (1 post)
(b) Joint Director of Medical Education (1 post)
Administrative posts for Medical College (A.G.M.C.)
Category-2: (a) Principal of Government Medical College (1
post)
(b) Registrar (Administration) (1 post)
Page 8 of 14
Administrative posts for G.B.P. Teaching Hospital of the Medical
College ( to be created).
Category-3: (a) Medical Superintendent-cum-Vice Principal (1
post)
(b) Deputy Medical Superintendent of Teaching
Hospital (1 post)
(c) Residential Medical Officer (RMO)-(1 post)
Different Teaching Posts in Medical College and its attached
Teaching Hospital.
(a) Different Teaching Posts in a Medical College and its attached
Teaching Hospitals are as per norms/guidelines defined in the
norms/guidelines of Medical Council of India and as amended from time to
time.
Teaching posts of Medical College are (1) Professor, (2)
Associate Professor, (3) Assistant Professor, (4) Tutor, (5) Registrar/Senior
Resident and (6) Junior Resident.
5. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT:
Appointment to different administrative and teaching posts of the
service after commencement of these rules shall be made by the following
methods:
a. Appointment to different administrative and teaching posts of
the Tripura Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Service shall be
made as detailed in SCHEDULE-II.
b. The basic teachers who have come from THS, within the
period (2005-2010) and working under AGMC may be appointed as basic
Teacher after getting approval from the appropriate authorities. At the time of
appointment he/she will have to fill up an option form in Schedule-II and
Annexure-I.
6. DIRECT RECRUITMENT:
Direct recruitment to different administrative and teaching posts of
the service shall be made on the recommendation of the Commission and the
Commission after necessary selection shall forward to the State Government
a list arranged in order of merit of the candidates, who have qualified by first
standard as the commission may determine for selection."
8. The eligibility and qualifications are prescribed in the Schedule-II
as per Rule-8 which, in turn, are governed by the Minimum Qualification for
Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. The petitioner had earlier
approached this Court in WP(C) No.434 of 2021 after 4 years of the
regularization of respondent No.5 in the year 2017 vide notification dated
12.09.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The name of respondent No.5
appears at Sl. No.17 as absorbed to the post of Basic Teacher (Tutor)/Senior
Page 9 of 14
Resident/Registrar in Tripura Medical Education Services in the discipline of
Orthopaedics under UR category. The learned Writ Court on the previous
occasion directed the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the
petitioner. The operative portion of the order is also extracted hereunder:
"I have heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P.
Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State. With the consent
of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, this Court is
inclined to pass the following directions:
(a) The respondents shall consider the case of regularization of
the petitioner in the post of Registrar of AGMC & GBP Hospital keeping in
mind that the services of some of his juniors, though they are less qualified
have been considered for regularization.
(b) The charge/special allowance may be considered for payment,
in view of the order as manifested in the order dated 16.02.2012 [Annexure-2
to the writ petition] issued in the name of the Governor of Tripura; and
(c) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ
petition stands allowed and disposed. Needless to say, that the petitioner shall
be at liberty to approach before the appropriate forum, if he is aggrieved by
any decision/action of the Government."
9. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner has been considered
by the competent authority and has been rejected, inter alia, taking into
consideration a number of grounds. The order of the competent authority is
also extracted hereunder as it indicates the reasons which have weighed upon
the respondent-authority to reject the application of the petitioner seeking
regularization:
ORDER
WHEREAS, Dr. Sukomal Sarkar, M.O., Gr-III of Tripura Health
Services, Government of Tripura filed a Writ Petition bearing No. W.P.(C)
434 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura regarding
regularization in the post of Registrar, Department of Orthopaedics, AGMC
& GBP Hospital, Agartala.
AND
WHEREAS, As Hon'ble High Court of Tripura vide Judgment and
Order dated 02-07-2021 disposed of the case with direction that "the
respondents shall consider the case of regularization of the petitioner in the
post of Registrar of AGMC & GBP Hospital keeping in the mind that the
services of some of his juniors, though they are less qualified have been
considered for regularization" and "the charge/special allowance may be
considered for payment in view of the order as manifested in the Order dated
16.02.2012 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] issued in the name of the
Governor of Tripura" and "the entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order".
AND
WHEREAS, the petitioner submitted his representation on 19-07-
2021 which has been received by this Department on 19-07-2021.
AND
WHEREAS, it is to be mentioned here that regularization of service
of an employee is applicable in cases of Ad-hoc/Temporary appointment. But
the petitioner in this Case is already a regular employee under THS (Tripura
Health Service) Cadre. So, Regularization of service does not arise in this
case.
AND
WHEREAS, it is evident from the final seniority list of Medical
officers (M.O) of Tripura Health Service (THS) of 2009 Vide No.F.3(183)-
HFW/2001(Vol-I) dated 11-11-2009 that the petitioner was junior to Dr.
Dipen Roy, Seniority Position of Dr. Dipen Roy was at serial No.279 & the
Petitioner's seniority position was at serial no.307. That means the petitioner
was junior to Dr. Dipen Roy. Moreover, Dr. Dipen Roy has completed
Diploma in Orthopaedics in the year 2001 whereas Dr. Sukomal Sarkar was
only MBBS up to the year 2011. The petitioner completed M.S. in
Orthopaedics in 2011. One more candidate namely Dr. Swarajit Debbarma
completed diploma in Orthopaedics in the year of 1993. Therefore, it is
evident that the petitioner was less qualified than both Dr. Roy & Dr.
Debbarma. So, after examination it is clear that the claim of the petitioner that
he was senior & more qualified than others who were absorbed in the
Department of Orthopaedics, AGMC & GBP Hospital, is not a fact.
AND
WHEREAS, it is claimed by the petitioner that some of his junior,
though they are less qualified, have been considered for regularization. In
reference to the petitioner's claim, it is stated that the matter of regularization
of ad-hoc Service of Dr. Anupam Debnath who is junior to Dr. Sukomal
Sarkar is not similar in nature with the petitioner as Dr. Debnath was already
on Ad-hoc service under Tripura Medical Education Service (TMES) against
Direct quota (e.g., not from Tripura Health Service). Whereas, the petitioner
is a regular employee under Tripura Health Service (THS) cadre. So, the
ground of the petitioner is not similarly situated with others whose service
were regularized in the post of Registrar in this case.
AND
WHEREAS, as per the Rule 5(b) of TMES, 2015, "The basic teachers
who have come from THS, within the period of (2005-2010) and working
under AGMC may be appointed as basic teacher after getting approval from
the appropriate authorities. At the time of appointment he/she will have to fill
up an option form in Schedule-II and Annexure-I. Dr. Sukomal Sarkar did not
serve in AGMC & GBP Hospital during the period of 2005 to 2010 as per
service Record Vide No.F.13(783)-HFW/93/1360 dated 29-07-2021. In this
regard, a notification was issued from the office of the Director of Medical
Education dated 09-10-2015 as per reference No.F.11(1)-DME/ET/2015/2517
in which exercise for option entering into TMES as Basic teacher
(Registrar/Tutor) from THS was invited & last date of which was 31-10-
2015. The petitioner did not exercise the option for entering under TMES
from THS. So, the Petitioner is not similarly situated with others who were
absorbed as Basic Teacher (Registrar) in Department of Orthopaedic, AGMC
& GBP Hospital. Whereas, Dr. Dipen Roy & Dr. Swarajit Debbarma
exercised the said option and submitted the same within the stipulated time
period.
AND
WHEREAS, the time period for entering into TMES from THS was
further extended up to September 2015. Subsequently, in the First
Amendment of TMES Rules 2016 Vide No. F.8(108)-DME/ESTT/2013(Sub-
III)/2858 Dated 14-09-2016 the provision under Rule 5(b) was substituted by
"The Teaching faculty engaged in AGMC from different grades of THS
within the period (2005 to September, 2015) and still working under AGMC
may be appointed as Basic Teacher after getting approval from the competent
authority. At the time of appointment, he/she shall have to fill up an option
form in schedule-II (A) and Annexure-I". In this regard, again, a notification
was issued from the office of the Director of Medical Education, dated 11-05-
2017 Vide No. F.8(108)-DME/ESTT/2013/Sub-IV in which filling up of
"Option Form" for entering into TMES as Basic teacher (Registrar/Tutor)
from THS was invited & last date of which was within 7(Seven) days from
the date of issuance of the order. But again, the petitioner did not submit the
Option Form for absorption under TMES from THS.
AND
WHEREAS, it is evident from the service record provided by the
Directorate of Health Services (DHS) that Dr. Sukomal Sarkar performed
duties in AGMC & GBP Hospital on deputation basis from 28-12-2010 to 25-
09-2012 as a Medical Officer. Though, he was assigned as full time Registrar
in department of Orthopaedics along with 09 other Medical Officers but, the
petitioner did not perform duties in the said designation in the Department of
Orthopaedics, AGMC & GBP Hospital, as he was deputed/Transferred to
Tripura Sundari Hospital & Gomati District Hospital, Udaipur, Gomati
Tripura from 26-09-2012 to 21-09-2016. So, the claim of the petitioner that
he worked as a full time Registrar in department of Orthopaedics in AGMC &
GBP Hospital since 2012 is not a factual statement. Then, in the year of 2017
one Govt. Order was notified, wherein, it was clearly stated that the Medical
Officers of Tripura Health Service (THS) having Post Graduate Degree &
below 40 years of age will be eligible for Senior Resident/Tutor in AGMC,
Agartala for 1 year, and will only be entitled for salary & allowances as they
were drawing while in THS before joining as Senior Resident/Tutor and will
not be entitled for any Teaching/Special Allowances nor any TA/DA and they
will be automatically released after completion of 1 year. So, payment of
teaching allowance is not applicable in this case.
AND
WHEREAS, after examination of all facts & aspects it appears that
the ground of the petitioner is not equally/similarly situated to others who
have been regularized earlier.
AND
NOW, therefore, after consideration of all aspect, the competent
authority is pleased to order that representation submitted by the petitioner
regarding regularization of the petitioner in the post of Registrar of AGMC &
GBP Hospital cannot be acceded to.
Accordingly, the representation is disposed.
This is issued with the approval of the Government of Tripura, Health
& Family welfare Department vide U.O.No.2438 Dated 27/09/2021."
10. Apart from other grounds which have been referred to in the
reasoned order, it is apparent that the petitioner had not exercised his option to
be absorbed in Tripura Medical Education Service in terms of Rule 5(b) of the
Rules of 2015 on both the occasions. At the first instance, the Director of
Medical Education had vide notification dated 09-10-2015 asked the interested
Medical Officers of Tripura Health Service to exercise their option for entering
into Tripura Medical Education Service as Basic Teacher (Registrar/Tutor)
from Tripura Health Service, the last date of which was 31.10.2015. Thereafter,
the Tripura Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Service Conditions
Rules, 2015 underwent its First Amendment and was notified on 14.09.2016
whereunder Rule 5(b) was substituted in the following manner:
"The Teaching faculty engaged in AGMC from different grades of
THS within the period (2005 to September, 2015) and still working under
AGMC may be appointed as Basic Teacher after getting approval from the
competent authority. At the time of appointment, he/she shall have to fill up
an option form in schedule-II (A) and Annexure-I"
11. Pursuant to this first amendment, a notification was issued by the
Director of Medical Education dated 11.05.2017 in which option was invited
from Medical Officers of the Tripura Health Service for entering into the
Tripura Medical Education Service as Basic teacher (Registrar/Tutor) from
Tripura Health Service within 7(seven) days of the date of issuance of the order
but again the petitioner did not submit the option form for absorption under
Tripura Medical Education Service from Tripura Health Service. The first
amendment is annexed at Annexure-A/2, Page-126 of the counter affidavit of
respondent No.5.
12. Exercise of option, therefore, was a mandatory condition for being
absorbed in the Tripura Medical Education Service. The contention of the
petitioner that he had already been absorbed in Tripura Medical Education
Service by virtue of the notification in the name of the Governor, Tripura dated
16.02.2012 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) does not merit acceptance as on
that date the Tripura Medical Education Service had not been constituted. The
Tripura Medical Education Service was constituted for the first time by virtue
of the notification dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit of
respondent No.5). Prior to that, incumbents of the Tripura Health Service were
engaged in different capacities including that of Full time Registrar/Tutor in the
Department of Orthopaedics of the AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala.
Thereafter, after issuance of notification dated 16.02.2012 (Annexure-2),
petitioner was sent on deputation by order dated 24.09.2012 to Tripura Sundari
District Hospital, Udaipur, Gomati District where he remained till 21.09.2016.
In any view of the matter, the petitioner having not exercised his option to join
Tripura Medical Education Service in terms of Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 2015
as amended by the First Amendment in the year 2016, the grievance of the
petitioner that he has not been regularized in Tripura Medical Education
Service is not tenable in law and on facts. The competent authority while
passing the reasoned order has specifically taken note of this fact that petitioner
did not submit his option for being absorbed in Tripura Medical Education
Service in terms of the Rules of 2015 as amended. It also takes into note that
the petitioner though was notified as full time Registrar in the Department of
Orthopaedics but he did not perform duties in the said designation in the
Department of Orthopaedics but was transferred/deputed to Tripura Sundari
Hospital & Gomati District Hospital, Udaipur from 26.09.2012 to 21.09.2016.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he worked as a full time Registrar in
the Department of Orthopaedics in AGMC & GBP Hospital since 2012 was not
factually correct.
13. After having given anxious consideration to the pleadings and
submissions of the rival parties and after going through the documents placed
from record and on perusal of the reasoned order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-
10 to the writ petition), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner
having failed to exercise option to join the Tripura Medical Education Service
as per the statutory rules, i.e. Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 2015 framed by the
State of Tripura could not stake a legal claim for being absorbed in the Tripura
Medical Education Service. The petitioner having failed to exercise option,
therefore, cannot seek the reliefs, prayed for, in the writ petition.
14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the end has submitted
that since the petitioner has performed knee replacement surgery for the first
time in the State of Tripura successfully in AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala
in the year 2023, as such the respondent-authorities should consider him for
being engaged/absorbed in the Tripura Medical Education Service for
providing better and specialized healthcare services to the inhabitants of the
State. In the present writ petition considering the nature of the challenge, this
Court is not required to make any comments on such a plea. However, it is up
to the competent authority under the Tripura Medical Education Department to
take into consideration such plea if raised by the petitioner. Writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
PULAK BANIK Date: 2023.09.01
17:18:18 +05'30'
