High Court · 2012

2. We have heard Mr DP Chaliha, Senior Advocate for the petitioners ; Mr D Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the State respondents a nd Mr DK Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr GZ Ahmed, Advocate for the self impleaded private respondents. Having outlined the contour of the redressal sought for, the riv 3. al pleadings in their bare essentials are indispensable to provide the factual c onspectus. The petitioners having completed their M.B.B.S degree on being duly s elected for the corresponding course by the Assam Public Service Commission, wer e appointed as Demonstrators/ Registrars in various disciplines in the three Med ical Colleges of the State of Assam in the year 2006. With the enhancement of th e entry level educational qualification for the posts of Registrar/ Demonstrator or the posts equivalent thereto from M.B.B.S Degree to Post Graduate Degree in the concerned subject vide the Notification dated 4.10.2006 issued by the Govern ment of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department and the prescription of this upgraded qualification to be a condition of eligibility for promotion t o the next higher post of Assistant Professor by the Medical Council of India, t he Assam Medical College (Regulation of Admission to Post Graduate Courses) Rule s, 2006 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the 2006 Rules’) were framed in supercession of the earlier Rules. As per Rule 4(3)(i) thereof (the 2006 Rules), reservation of 5 seats for teachers in the subject of Anatomy, Physiology, Bio chemistry, Pharmacology, Microbiology, SPM & Forensic Medicine was provided for. Subsequent thereto, the 2006 Rules underwent amendment ushered in by the Assam Medical College (Regulation of Appointment to Post Graduate Courses) (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the 2010 Rules’) enhancing the number of seats allocated for the Teacher’s Quota from 5 to 20 for the sessi ons 2010 and 2011. The amended Rule 4(3)(vi) provided a maximum of 4 seats in a subject allowable in each session for the Teacher’s Quota. The norms of eligibil ity for being accommodated against these seats were also prescribed. According to the petitioners, following such enhancement in the 4. Teacher’s Quota seats, persons similarly situated like them could avail the bene fit thereof and consequently enroll themselves in the Post Graduate courses in t heir field (s) of teaching. That, amongst others, the amended Rule 4(3)(i) of t he 2010 Rules had been unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in WP(C) 3280 /2010 has been mentioned. The petitioners, however, have asserted that inspite o f the aforestated negation of the assailment only 10 out of 20 seats in the Teac her’s Quota were made available to the concerned candidates for the session 2011 leaving behind 18 candidates serving as Demonstrators/ Registrars/ Residents in various Medical Colleges of the State waiting in bonafide expectation to derive the benefit of such allocation in the Teacher’s Quota. It was at this juncture that the impugned amendment has been introduced reducing the number of seats in the Teacher’s Quota from 20 to 5. The Notification dated 11.1.2012 carrying the amendment made it obvious that the 2012 Rules would be applicable to regulate ad mission of students into Post Graduate/ Diploma Course in the Medical Colleges o f Assam and would cover the academic session from 2012. Repudiating this amendme nt to be apparently arbitrary, irrational and whimsical thereby denying them of their constitutional right to pursue Post Graduate Courses against the Teacher’ s Quota seats under the Rules, the petitioners have sought for panacean interven tion of this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

5. The Director of Medical Education, Assam (respondent No.4) has f iled his affidavit wherein it has been asserted that in view of the entry level academic qualification of M.B.B.S degree only many of the Registrars/ Demonstrat ors could not be promoted to the next higher post resulting in stagnation and va cancies in the higher ranks and causing dislocation in the departmentwise staffi ng pattern stipulated by the Medical Council of India. As this was a direct fall out of lack of Post Graduate degree of the serving Registrars/ Demonstrators in particular, on one hand the entry level academic qualification was upgraded to that of Post Graduate Degree and on the other, Rule 4(3) of the 2006 Rules was a mended to increase the number of Teacher’s Quota seats from 5 to 20 as a one tim e measure for the sessions-2010 and 2011. This was feasible also in view of awar d of additional Post Graduate seats in the session 2010. The deponent reaffirmed the rejection of the impugnment of the amendment to Rule 4(3) of the 2006 Rules occasioning increase in the number of Teacher’s Quota seats by this Court. Acco rding to the answering respondent, however, in view of the intervening litigatio n and non-availability of the full quota of seats, only 10 could be filled up fr om the eligible serving teachers. The affidavit discloses the plea that enhancem ent of Teacher’s Quota seats from 5 to 20 was only for the sessions-2010 and 201 1 and that with the exercise undertaken as contemplated, there are at present on ly a few teachers left without Post Graduate degree who can be accommodated with in the next few years by retaining 5 seats in the quota per year with a maximum of 2 seats per subject. The answering respondent has insisted that having regard to the regulated nature of the amendment of Rule 4(3)(i), with the lapse of the 2011 session, the enhanced quota of 20 has ceased. It has been stated further t hat the teachers are eligible to apply for open quota seats as well. The private respondents in their counter while dismissing the ch 6. allenge laid to the amendment to Rule 4(3)(i) vide the 2012 Rules, have endorsed in general the justification provided by the official respondents. Terming the amendment to Rule 4(3)(i) of the 2006 Rules effecting enhancement of the Teacher ’s Quota seats from 5 to 20 as an imperative of institutional requirements to wa rd off, amongst others, the imminent risk of de-recognition of the Medical Coll eges of the State by the Medical Council of India, they have asserted that havin g regard to the limited duration for which the Teacher’s Quota seats had been in creased, no unassailable right in the petitioners is discernible to seek a writ of mandamus as endeavoured by them. According to these respondents, the amendmen t of Rule 4(3)(i) by the 2012 Rules is valid and adapted to the prevailing insti tutional exigencies and, thus, does not merit any interference by this Court. Mr Chaliha has argued that as would be evident from the affidavi 7. t filed on behalf of the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department of the State in WP(C) 3280/2010 (Dr. Sushil Agarwalla & Ors. -vs- State of Assam & Ors.) that t he enhancement in the Teacher’s Quota seats occasioned by the 2010 Rules was c ontingent on the increase in the number of Post Graduate Degree seats for the se ssions 2010 and 2011, reduction thereof to 5 in the face of successive increase of seats in the consecutive sessions is obviously arbitrary, unreasonable and ir rational resulting in hostile discrimination. As the serving teachers bereft of the Post Graduate Degree would, thus, be deprived of an opportunity to make up t heir academic deficiency for further advancement of their career, the impugned p rovision of the Rules being violative of their fundamental right to equal opport unity in public employment, ought to be adjudged unconstitutional, null and void , he urged. Mr Chaliha dismissed the plea of the official respondents that the p etitioners were eligible to compete for the open quota seats as, admittedly, the y lack in the essential norm of rural service. The learned senior counsel, thus, urged that the impugned provision of the 2010 Rules being without any intelligi ble basis, be annulled. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, in reply, has reitera 8. ted the pleaded stand of the Government to contend that not only the enhancement of the Teacher’s Quota seats in the attendant compelling circumstances was temp orary for the sessions-2010 and 2011 only and that as the objective thereof has meanwhile been substantially achieved, the restoration of the original quota of seats cannot be faulted with. Contending that the impugned provision of the 2012 Rules is an inevitable corollary of the enjoinment of Rule 4(3)(i) of the 2010 Rules and that having regard to the nature and the purpose thereof, the petition ers cannot claim violation of any enforceable right of theirs, Mr Saikia has sub mitted on instructions that in case they apply for relaxation of the norm of rur al service so as to enable them to compete for the open quota seats, the same wo uld receive due consideration of the Government. In supplementation of the above, Mr Mishra has maintained that t 9. he allocation of the Teacher’s Quota seats being in the nature of reservation fo r a particular category of candidates to pursue an academic course, it is a matt er of discretion of the authorities concerned and not one of constitutional duty or legal compulsions. The learned senior counsel has, therefore, urged that not only the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right to demand continuance o f the Teacher’s Quota as prescribed by the 2010 Rules, their impugnment of Rule 4(3)(i) of the 2012 Rules and their prayer for a writ of mandamus to restore 20 seats in such quota for their accommodation against the same is wholly misconcei ved. Mr Mishra, to reinforce his contentions, placed reliance of the decisions o f the Apex Court in C.A. Rajendran -vs- Union of India & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 507; Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) -vs- State of Punjab & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 209 and of this Court in Sushil Agarwalla & Ors. -vs- State of Assam & Ors., 2011 (3) GLT 126.

10. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced on the b asis thereof have received our due consideration. Admittedly, the process of adm ission to the Post Graduate courses in the Medical Colleges of the State is gove rned by a set of Rules which were in the form of the 2006 Rules contemplating 5 Teacher’s Quota seats as is relevant for the purposes of the present adjudicatio n. The background in which the 2010 Rules had to be introduced is also not in di spute. In between, the entry level academic qualification for the posts of Demon strator/ Registrar had been enhanced/ upgraded from that of M.B.B.S to a Post Gr aduate Degree. Lack of Post Graduate Degree of the existing incumbents in these offices prohibited their promotion to the next higher rank of Assistant Professo r and upwards to that of Professor in the various disciplines/ departments. This criterion of eligibility for promotion was imperative in nature being prescribe d by the Medical Council of India’s guidelines. Lack of Post Graduate Degree at the entry level posts, thus, precipitated stagnation as well as vacancies in the higher ranks. As the upgradation in the entry level academic qualification from M.B.B.S to a Post Graduate Degree only failed to appropriately meet the situati on which grew alarming with the imminent risk of de-recognition of the Medical C olleges of the State for their failure to adhere to the staffing pattern prescri bed by the Medical Council of India, enhancement in the Teacher’s Quota seats wa s construed to be a remedial initiative. The number of seats in the Teacher’s Qu ota prescribed by Rule 4(3)(i) of the 2006 Rules was enhanced to 20 for the sess ions-2010 and 2011 in the following terms: (cid:28)(i) in sub-rule (3),-- (a) for clause (i), the following shall be substituted namely :- (i) 20 seats shall be reserved for each session namely sessions 2010 and session 2011 only in degree curses for the teaches belonging to the three Medical Colle ges of Assam who have joined service after due selection through the Commission or whose services were regularized by the Commission. They shall have to appear before the Selection Board constituted under clause (i) of this sub-rule: Provided that if any of the Teacher’s Quota seats are not filled up due to non-availability of an eligible candidate in a particular year, then the vaca nt seat shall be filled up by candidates from the merit list of the respective y ear in order of merit. (cid:29).

11. The amendment to Rule 4(3)(vi) predicated a ceiling of 4 seats i n a subject allowable in each session for the Teacher’s Quota. That one of the r easons for enhancement in the Teacher’s Quota seats as above was increase in the number of Post Graduate Degree seats for the session 2010-2011 is, however, evi dent from the affidavit filed by the State respondents in WP(C) 3280/2010 [Dr. S ushil Agarwalla & Ors. (supra)]. The official respondents therein as well reiter ated their averments as made in their counter in the instant proceedings justify ing the enhancement of the Teacher’s Quota seats. They inter alia stated as well that at that point of time there were 45 Registrars/ Demonstrators lacking in P ost Graduate Degree and that the enhancement in the Teacher’s Quota seats had be en conceived of so as to facilitate their acquisition of the Post Graduate Degre e for rendering them eligible for promotion to the higher posts as per the enjoi nments of the Medical Council of India guidelines. That the enhancement in the T eacher’s Quota seats from 5 to 20 as effected by the 2010 amendment was not spur red by the increase in the number of the Post Graduate Degree seats for the sess ion-2010 alone is, thus, apparent on the face of the records. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioners that increase in the Teacher’s Quota seats was invari ably relatable only to the increase in the Post Graduate Degree seats so much so that no reduction thereof under any circumstance is permissible is, thus, unten able being too simplistic in essence as well as casually dismissive of the other determinants contributing to the amendment of Rule 4(3)(i) by the 2010 Rules.

12. In course of the arguments, Mr Saikia has apprised this Court th at meanwhile out of 45/48 then existing non-Post Graduate Demonstrators/ Registr ars, 30 have pursued/ have been pursuing the Post Graduate course by availing th e benefit of enhancement in the Teacher’s Quota seats for the sessions-2010 and 2011 and that those remaining can very well be accommodated with time against th e seats now prescribed by the 2012 Rules. This proposition, however, has not bee n refuted on behalf of the petitioners.

13. A bare perusal of the amended Rule 4(3)(i) designed by the 2010 Rules would unequivocally testify that the enhancement of the Teacher’s Quota se ats to 20 had been intended only for the sessions-2010 and 2011, a fact noticed by this Court in Sushil Agarwalla & Ors. (supra). Therein the justifications nar rated by the departmental authorities therefor had been duly taken note of with approval. The challenge to Rule 4(3)(i) of the 2010 Rules, on a detailed conside ration of the pleaded facts and the law attendant thereon, was negated.

14. The allocation of the Teacher’s Quota seats, having regard to th e framework of the scheme and the selection process for admission to the Post Gr aduate courses is obviously by way of reservation in favour of a particular cate gory of candidates in order to facilitate their participation in the Post Gradua te Course of study. That such reservation is a matter of discretion of the conce rned authorities has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Apex Court in C.A . Rajendran (supra) rendered in the context of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships with reference to the issue of reservation for the Sc heduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contemplated under the aforementioned provis ion, ruled that the same did neither vest any right on the claimants nor cast an y constitutional duty on the Government and that it only conferred a discretiona ry power on the State to make appropriate provisions in favour of the backward c lasses of the citizens which, in its opinion, was not adequately represented in its services. This view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) (supra) which as well reversed a contrary view taken in two earlier decisions. Their Lordships propounded that no mandamus coul d be issued either to provide for reservation or for any relaxation of any presc ribed norm.

15. Having regard to the backdrop in which the Teacher’s Quota seats had been enhanced by the amendment of Rule 4(3)(i) vide the 2010 Rules and the developments subsequent thereto as has been projected in the pleadings of the pa rties, we are of the unhesitant opinion, in the teeth of the law enunciated by t he Apex Court as above, that no interference as sought for is warranted. The rea sons/ justifications furnished by the State respondents in endorsement of the 20 12 Rules qua Rule 4(3)(i) are relevant and cogent and merit acceptance. The impu gnment of the amendment of Rule 4(3)(i) by the 2012 Rules is hereby rejected.

16. Consequently, the relief by way of a writ of mandamus is also de clined. It is, however, made clear that this determination notwithstanding, if t he petitioners submit appropriate representation(s) before the concerned departm ental authorities for relaxation of the norm of rural service so as to enable th em to compete for the open quota seats to pursue the Post Graduate courses in th e three Medical Colleges of the State of Assam, the same would be duly and exped itiously considered in accordance with law.

17. Subject to the above, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.