Dr.Paritosh Shringi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to treat the petitioner as in-service category candidate while relieving him from the post of Medical Officer and further he claims all the benefits as in-service category candidate while undergoing Post Graduate Medical Course.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ajay Chaudhary submitted that prayer No.I made by the petitioner to accept the candidature of the petitioner as in-service candidate is not pressed by the petitioner and as such, this Court may not consider the same prayer for treating the petitioner as in-service candidate.

Learned counsel confines his relief in respect of prayer Clause-II in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer vide order dated 31.05.2016 and he joined the said post on 01.06.2016.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had participated in NEET PG Examination, 2020 and he had also sought No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government for appearing in the said examination and the State Government had granted NOC to the petitioner vide order dated 03.02.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner participated in second round of counselling conducted by the NEET PG Medical & Dental Admission/Counselling Board- 2020, however, the petitioner claims to be allotted seats in MD (Pathology) at Pacific Institute of Medical Sciences, Udaipur as non-service candidate.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not claiming any benefit of in-service category candidate and after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has also been relieved by the Authorities vide order dated 26.08.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue with regard to treating the petitioner as in-service category candidate for the purpose of study leave has been considered by this Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others while deciding, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9113/2020 and other connected writ petitions, by a common order dated 03.09.2020.

Learned counsel submitted that this Court has already taken a view that, even if, a candidate is treated as non-service category candidate but if he is working in State Government, his entitlement for the study leave emanates from the amendment which has been made by the State Government in Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 granting study leave for 36 months.

This Court deems it proper to quote, the relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur (supra), hereunder:-

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

This Court finds that the petitioners are not claiming any benefit of seat as "in- service" candidate or allotment of bonus marks to them for the purpose of admission.

This Court further finds that the petitioners are working as Medical Officer in the service of the State Government and if the petitioners have been granted admission in PG courses, either as "non- service" candidate or as "in-service" candidate (Petitioner No2 - Dr.Tarun Kumar, petitioner No.5 - Dr.Ramveer Patel), the issue is with regard to relieving the petitioners for joining the said course.

This Court finds that the respondent - State Government should not create any obstruction in relieving the petitioners, if already not relieved to pursue the higher studies. There is legal impediment in this regard.

This Court finds that the candidates/petitioners are also required to execute a bond before the Authorities that they will not leave the course and further, they will render their services after completing the course.

This Court finds that category of the petitioners, for the purpose of pursuing higher studies, will not make any difference and as such, the respondent - State Authorities are required to relieve the petitioners to join their respective courses.

The prayer of the petitioners to grant them study leave is required to be looked into as per the amendment, which the State Government itself has made on 31st July, 2020. The exception, which has been added to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, makes it very clear that those Medical Officers, who are working in the State Government, including the Medical Officer (Dental), Ayurved Medical Officer, Unani Medical Officer, Homeopathy Medical Officer, Teachers of Medical Education, are entitled for 36 months' study leave for doing their PG/super-speciality courses.

This Court finds that if the petitioners have been rendering their services in the State Government as Medical Officer, the State Authorities are required to consider them entitled for the grant of study leave, as per the amendment, which itself has been made by the State Government.

This Court further finds that even if the petitioners are treated as "non-service category" candidates, once they are working in the State Government, entitlement emanates from the amendment, which has been inserted by the State Government.

This Court, considering the amendment brought into Rajasthan Service Rules and allotment of seats to the petitioners, either in "non-service category" or "in-service category", finds that the petitioners are required to be relieved, if they have already not been relieved from their respective place of posting, enabling them to join the respective courses.

This Court also finds that the respondents are always at liberty to collect the relevant information about working of the petitioners as "in-service" candidates and they may be given adequate time to produce the relevant details from the competent authority about their working in the rural areas and the same can be submitted by them.

This Court further holds that the petitioners are entitled for grant of study leave, as per the exception added to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.

The respondents are directed to make compliance of this order expeditiously, as the matter pertains to admission in PG courses."

Learned counsel Mr.Angad Mirdha appearing for the respondent--Medical Council of India submits that this Court has already decided the similar controversy and as such, no further arguments are required to be made from his side.

Learned counsel Mr.Harshal Tholia submitted that the objection of the State with regard to entitlement of non-service candidate working in the State Government has already been taken and considered by this Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur (supra). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit as in-service category candidate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the petitioner in the instant petition is not claiming any benefit as in-service candidate or allotment of bonus marks to him for the purpose of admission.

This Court finds that since the petitioner is working as Medical Officer in the service of the State Government and if he has been granted admission as non-service category candidate, the entitlement of the petitioner is governed by exception added to Rule 112 of RSR granting benefit of study leave to the Medical Officer.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and directions given by this Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Pooja Mathur will also be applicable in the present case.