Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rasna Agrawal vs State Of Rajasthan … on 3 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5650/2024
Rasna Agrawal W/o Dr. Avinash Agrawal, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o. 63-A, Shagun, Road No.3, Bapu Nagar, Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And
Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health
Services, (Group-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Raj.).
4. Director (Ph), Medical And Health Services, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Principal Medical Officer, District Hospital, Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
03/03/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the order passed by this Court in Dr. Sarvesh
Pradhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5821/2023), decided on 26.02.2024 and therefore,
prayed that similar order may also be passed in the case at hand.
(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]
1.1. In the case of Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra), this Court
passed the following order:-
“1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India claiming the
following reliefs:-
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed
that the writ petition may kindly be allowed
and:-
(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the
proviso to Rule 56 of Rajasthan Civil Services
Rules 1951 as inserted by amendment dated
31.03.2016 as it relates to superannuation in
respect of MBBS Degree holder officer of the
Rajasthan Medical and Health Service may
kindly be declared discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and same be declared as ultra vires and the
respondents may kindly be directed to
amend/include Medical Officers (Dental) holding
BDS Degree in the proviso so that their age of
superannuation shall also be 62 years.
(b) That amendment in the Rule 56 of Rajasthan
Service rules by insertion of proviso notification
dated 31.03.2016 may kindly be quashed so far
as it relates to extension of age of MBBS degree
holder Medical Officers and the words “MBBS
Degree holder” may be deleted being violative of
14 & 16 of the constitution of India.
(c) Alternatively, the respondent State
Government may be directed to further insert
fresh proviso to Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Civil
Service Rules 1951 regarding the medical
officers holding BDS/MDS Degree, in
consonance with the proviso of Rule 56 by which
the age of superannuation in respect of MBBS
degree holder Medical Officers of the Rajasthan
Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) has been
increased to 62 years.
(d) That the order no.2/2023 (Annex.5) may
kindly be quashed and set aside and the
petitioner may be allowed to continue in the
service upto the age of 62 years.
(e) The costs of this writ petition may kindly be
awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(f) Any other appropriate order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court considers just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of this
case may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.”
(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]
2. Brief facts as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is
holding qualification of Bachelor of Dental Surgeon
(BDS) and was initially appointed on the post of
Medical Officer (Dental) through recruitment process of
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and was
thereafter promoted to the post of Principal Specialist
in CHC, Merta City. (3 of 10)
2.1. Subsequently, the State Government vide
notification dated 31.03.2016 an amendment was
made in Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951
(in short, ‘Rules of 1951’) by the Rajasthan Service
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2016.
2.2. Thereafter in pursuance of the notification dated
30.03.2018, an order dated 31.03.2018 came to be
passed by the State Government enhancing the age of
MBBS degree holder superannuation of Medical
Teachers of Rajasthan Medical Service from 62 years to
65 years.
2.3. Subsequently, the respondent department issued
order no. 2/2023 on its official website for retirement
of medical officers/senior medical officers/junior
specialists and other higher posts wherein the persons
mentioned in the list were to retire on attaining the age
of superannuation of 62 years, however name of the
petitioner was mentioned at Serial no. 35 and as per
the given date of retirement, the petitioner was to
retire at the age of 60 years.
2.4. In consequence of the notification dated
31.03.2016, the age of superannuation was increased
from 60 years to 62 years for MBBS degree holder
officer. In further, a representation was also submitted
by the petitioner on 10.04.2023 inviting attention,
amongst others, towards the undue anomaly caused in
the service conditions of MBBS Degree Holders and
BDS Degree Holders vide notification dated
31.03.2016. Aggrieved of the notification dated
31.03.2016 and order no.2/2023, the present petition
has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Medical Officers holding the qualifications of MBBS
and BDS are recruited to the Rajasthan Medical
Services by common mode of recruitment through
RPSC, even the promotions are done through common
DPC, thus there exists no separate eligibility criteria for
recruitment and selection to Rajasthan Medical
Services in respect of candidates holding MBBS or BDS
qualification.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the
impugned notification dated 31.03.2016 has been
issued by the respondent State without any rationale,
causing changes in conditions of service and benefits of
service qua Medical Officers holding MBBS degree only,
(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]
the same being clearly violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In furtherance, the said action of
the respondent State has resulted in causing benefit to
only one class of officers whereas there exists two
distinct classes of officers out of one common cadre
placing the other class at apparent disadvantage, the
same being clearly unreasonable and unjust in the eye
of law.
3.2. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram
Naresh Sharma (Civil Appeal no.4578/2021, decided on
03.08.2021).
3.3. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in
the case of Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan
(D.B.C.W.P. No. 6312/2022 decided on 06.09.2022)
wherein a similar controversy as that of the present
case was dealt with, regarding the notification dated
30.03.2018. Learned counsel also clarified that the said
judgment was thereafter challenged before the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. – Petition (s) for
Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.14308 14318/2022
alongwith SLP(c) No. 19112/2022 and the said special
leave petition was dismissed vide order dated
25.11.2022.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents, while opposing the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned
notification and the impugned order are based on
intelligible differentia as the age of doctors holding
MBBS Degree was increased from 60 to 62 years to
address the issue of lack of Allopathy doctors.
4.1. Learned counsel further submits that a large
number of vacancies remained unfilled in medical
colleges and Government hospitals whereas the vacant
posts for BDS doctors is Nil, and thus, the amendment
in the year 2016 was introduced in the Rules of 1951.
In furtherance, learned counsel submits that if the age
of doctors is not increased to 65 years then the State
of Rajasthan would not have been able to comply with
the MCI Rules which require minimum number of
doctors for opening new medical colleges.
4.2. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare
Association and Ors. v. State of Nagaland (2010) 7
SCC 643.
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that an analysis of the status of posts upto
31.12.2022 clearly showcases that around 35% posts
of MBBS doctors (Medical Officers) and BDS doctors
(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]
(Medical Officer Dental) are lying vacant, thus the
submissions of the respondents of vacancies in the BDS
doctors being Nil does not stand. In furtherance, the
last recruitment process was taken in January 2018,
thus for five years not a single recruitment process has
been initiated to fill vacant posts of BDS doctors.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
perused the record of the case alongwith the
judgments cited at the Bar.
7. This Court observes that the petitioner is holding
the qualification of BDS degree and is working on the
post of Principal Specialist in CHC, Merta City; an
amendment was made in the Rule 56 of the Rules of
1951 by the Rajasthan Service (Second Amendment)
Rules 2016 vide/by notification dated 31.03.2016
whereby the age of superannuation of only MBBS
Degree holders was increased to 62 years whereas that
was not the case for the Medical Officers holding BDS
degree; further, order No.2/2023 came to be passed
by the respondent State wherein the superannuation
age of the petitioner as per the said order came out to
be 60 years when instead the age of superannuation of
the other doctors mentioned in the above said order
was 62 years.
7.1. This Court also observes that the aforementioned
amendment was made in Rule 56 of the Rules of 1951
by the Rajasthan Service (Second Amendment) Rules,
2016; the said amendment is reproduced as
hereunder:-
“2. Amendment of rule 56:- In rule 56
of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, after the
existing proviso and before the existing note,
the following new proviso shall be inserted,
namely:-
Provided further that the age of
superannuation in respect of MBBS degree
holder Medical Teachers of the Rajasthan
Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) and MBBS
degree holder Officers of the Rajasthan Medical
& Health Service shall be 62 years.”
8. This Court further observes that an interim order
dated 03.05.2023 is operating in favour of the
petitioner, which reads as under:
“By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner
has challenged the validity of Notification dated
31.03.2016 issued by the State Government,
whereby while amending Rule 56 of Rajasthan
Civil Services Rules, 1951, the age of
superannuation in respect of MBBS degree
holder medical teachers of the Rajasthan
Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) and MBBS
degree holder officers of the Rajasthan Medical
and Health Services has been enhanced from(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]60 to 62 years. The petitioner is being
aggrieved by the action of the State
Government of not including the BDS degree
holders in the notification dated 31.03.2016. It
is submitted that qualifications of BDS and
MBBS degree holders are similar and both of
them are being recruited to the Rajasthan
Medical Services by common mode of
recruitment under the Rajasthan Medical and
Health Services Rules, 1962 through Rajasthan
Public Service Commission. It is submitted that
the promotions of BDS and MBBS degree
holders are being considered by a common DPC
and both are also discharging similar duties. It
is submitted that vide impugned notification,
the State Government has enhanced
superannuation age of MBBS degree holders
from 60 to 62 years, however, the BDS degree
holders are not included in it and the said
action of the State Government is in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the decision dated 15.09.2022 rendered by a
DivisionBench of this Court in Dr. Rajan Mathur
vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.6312/2022). Issue notice. Issue
notice of stay petition as well, returnable on
10th July, 2023.
In the meantime, the respondents are
directed not to
superannuate the petitioner on 30th June,
2023.”
9. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered
in the case of Dr. Rajan Mathur (supra) by the Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court, the relevant portion is
reproduced hereunder:
“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(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]Teachers holding he 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 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. 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.”
10. This Court also observes that the above said
judgment Dr. Rajan Mathur (supra) was challenged
before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(c) no.
19112/2022 (supra) and the said petition was
dismissed, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced
as hereunder:
“It is not in dispute that this petition involves
extending the higher age of retirement to BDS
Doctors/teachers who are also engaged in
teaching in medical colleges. We see no reason
to interfere. The special leave petition is
dismissed.”
11. Thus, it is clear that there exists no intelligible
differentia as claimed by the respondent State, and
(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:11725-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-5650/2024]
hence, in light of the aforesaid observations and
looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this
Court is of the opinion that a similar controversy
already being settled by a Coordinate Bench of this
Hon’ble Court the present petition deserves to be
allowed.
11.1. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the
words- Medical Officers holding BDS/MBBS degrees
shall be read into the notification dated 31.03.2016.
12. Consequently, this Court allows the present
petition. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside
the order No.2/2023 (Annex.5), qua the petitioner, it is
ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue
in service upto the age of 62 years. The respondent
authorities shall pass necessary orders to continue
Medical Officers (Dental) in service till the age of 62
years with all consequential benefits. It is however
made clear that the Medical Officers (Dental) who have
already superannuated shall not be entitled to claim
reinstatement in the service, in pursuance of this
order. All pending applications stand disposed of.”
2. In light of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel
for the parties, the present petition is also allowed in light of and
with the similar direction as given in the case of Dr. Sarvesh
Pradhan (supra).
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
49-devrajP/-
(Downloaded on 04/03/2025 at 09:43:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link