Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6689-6690 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.14244-45 of 2015)

Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal  and others etc.         …..Appellant(s)

versus

State of West Bengal and others      ..Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT M. Y. EQBAL, J.  

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the

Judgment and order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Division

Bench of High Court of  Calcutta in A.S.T.  Nos. 51 & 52 of

2015 dismissing the writ petitions preferred by the appellants

against the order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal

refusing  to pass an interim order  and fixing  the matter  for

final hearing.

1

Page 2

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants-writ

petitioners,  who are all Doctors serving under the Department

of  Health  and Family  Welfare,  Government  of  West  Bengal,

had obtained M.B.B.S.  Degree and were issued Registration

Certificates from the West Bengal Medical Council in different

years.  All  of  them  are  permanent  employees  under  the

Department  of  Health  and  Family  Welfare,  Government  of

West Bengal, having joined their services mostly before 2008.

It is appellants’ case that the West Bengal University of Health

Sciences published an Advertisement for the West Bengal Post

Graduate  Medical  Admission  Test  for  the  years  2011-2012.

They all got rank in the test of 2011 or in the test of 2012 and

after  counselling,  all  of  them  were  admitted  to  different

Diploma courses and they all completed their courses in the

year 2014 with Trainee Reserve Facility (T.R. Facility) following

the West Bengal Medical Education Service, the West Bengal

Health  Service  and  the  West  Bengal  Public  Health-cum-

Administrative Service (Placement on Trainee Reserve) Rules,

2008 (in short, “T. R. Rules of 2008”), which enabled them to

2

Page 3

study  in  the  said  courses  as  applicable  to  in-service

candidates.  Such  T.  R.  facilities  were  allowed  by  the

Government vide different memos issued from time to time.

4.  It has been pleaded on behalf of the appellants that they

have availed two years’ T.R. Facilities on completion of their

courses and that they had also availed T. R. facilities to which

they were entitled to get and all of them had obtained such

facility in the year 2012, which came to be completed in the

year  2014,  just  after  completion  of  their  Diploma  courses.

Further on completion of their Post Graduate Diploma Courses

in the year 2014, their results were duly published and all of

them passed the examinations and joined duty. Some of them

were  posted  at  different  Health  Centres  while  others  at

different Hospitals, but all  of them had passed the Diploma

courses with good marks.

5. The West Bengal University of Health Sciences issued an

Advertisement on 12.12.2014 pertaining to the West Bengal

Post  Graduate  Medical  Admission  Test,  2015.  They  also

3

Page 4

published the  Rules and Regulations of  the said Admission

Test.  The writ petitioners submitted their formal applications

before  the  concerned  authorities  so  as  to  enable  them  to

appear in the said 2015 Tests.   It has been contended by the

appellants  that  they  were  all  eligible  and  the  process  of

allowing  in-service  Doctors  to  take  the  Tests  was  being

followed by the concerned Department for several years and,

therefore, the appellants submitted Proforma of Sponsorship

Certificates,  which  were  duly  accepted  by  the  concerned

authorities.  The appellants then applied for the West Bengal

Post  Graduate  Medical  Admission Test,  2015 by  submitting

necessary  documents  along  with  the  necessary  fees  in  the

category  of  Government  Sponsored  Candidates.  The

authorities of the Department of Health and Family Welfare,

Government of West Bengal then allowed them to appear and

the  University  of  Health  Sciences  also  accepted  their

Application Forms on-line  and subsequently,  the  appellants

also  submitted  hardcopies  of  such  Applications  within  the

specified time.  

4

Page 5

6. In February, 2015, Written Test for the 2015 Tests was

held in which appellants appeared and in the results, which

were  published  on  11.2.2015,  appellants  got  comfortable

ranks  and  top  positions.   As  pleaded  on  behalf  of  the

appellants, on 17.03.2015 a List was published in the website

informing, inter alia, that the persons mentioned therein had

qualified  for  acquiring  Sponsorship  Certificates  for  the

W.B.P.G.M.A.T.  2015 and they were instructed to go to the

concerned  Office  and  collect  their  certificates  personally.

Hence, it is contended by the appellants that they were found

eligible for being given Sponsorship Certificates.  However, on

20.3.2015,  the  authorities  published  yet  another  Notice  in

their website giving out the names of 223 candidates giving

similar instructions for personally collecting the Sponsorship

Certificates.   But  in  this  Notice,  the  names  of  the  present

appellants  were  dropped  out.  Upon  enquiry,  they  came  to

learn that the authorities had taken a decision that they would

not allow candidates, who had passed Diploma within the last

5

Page 6

three  years  and  as  such  their  names  had  been  dropped.

Being aggrieved, the appellants sent a Letter of  Demand for

justice as well as Objection against such act and prayed for

modifying their stand of not allowing such persons who had

passed Diploma within the last three years. According to the

appellants,  this  was  a  condition,  which  was  de  hors  the

provisions of the Trainee Reserve Rules of 2008.  

7.  The names of the appellants were again not published in

another  Notice  dated  23.03.2015,  whereby  the  authorities

allowed  several  Doctors,  who  had  completed  their  Post

Graduate Diploma prior to 2012 and before entering service

and,  according  to  the  appellants,  even the  candidates,  who

had  not  completed  2/3  years  rural  service,  which  was

compulsory  as  per  the  Rules,  were  allowed.    It  has  been

alleged  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  that  these  Doctors  had

several  relatives/cousins/nephews in the higher  echelons of

the Government and, therefore, the action was motivated and

mala fide.

6

Page 7

8. It has been further pleaded by the appellants that by a

Notification  dated  24.03.2015,  the  Joint  Secretary  to  the

Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family

Welfare  informed,  inter  alia,  that  in  exercise  of  powers

conferred under Clause 9 of said T. R. Rules of 2008, those

Medical  Officers,  who  had  acquired  Post  Graduate

Diploma/Degree  on  availing  facilities  within  the  last  three

years (1.4.2012 to 31.3.2015), would not be allowed further T.

R. facility during this year (2015).  According to the appellants,

this  order  is  illegal,  arbitrary  and  proceeds  to  debar  the

appellants  purportedly  on  a  ground,  which  is  beyond  the

grounds mentioned in the Rules.  According to them, despite

being toppers of the merit list they could not participate in the

counselling session.

9. Aggrieved appellants, therefore, immediately approached

the First Bench of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in

short,  “the Tribunal”),  which dismissed their petition on the

ground  that  Clause  9  of  the  T.R.  Rules  of  2008  had  a

non-obstante  Clause  whereby  the  Government  had  a

7

Page 8

discretionary power in matters regarding placement of Trainee

Reserve  candidates  and  that  no  interim  orders  could  be

passed at that stage.    Appellants,  thereafter,  knocked the

doors of  the High Court by filing writ petitions, which were

dismissed by the Division Bench holding that the discretion

that  has been exercised in the instant case does not  suffer

from any irregularity and it is based on logic, equality and on

public policy since Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules clearly lays

down  that  “placement”  shall  be  at  the  discretion  of  the

Government.  Thus,  even  if  a  Doctor  is  eligible  for  further

Government  Sponsorship,  he  cannot  claim,  as  a  matter  of

right, that such sponsorship be given to him consecutively and

in short intervals by not considering others, who are in queue

for a period prior to 1.4.2012.  

10. Hence,  the  aggrieved  Doctors  are  before  us  by  way  of

these appeals by special leave.  We have heard learned counsel

for the parties at length and perused the concerned Rules.

8

Page 9

11. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellants, mainly contended that only after the appellants

were  selected,  the  Notification  was  published  on  24.3.2015

indicating  that  in-service  candidates  who  had  obtained

diploma in the years 2012-2014 would not be considered for

the degree course and only pre-2012 diploma holders would be

considered.  According to the learned senior counsel, there is

no rationale for this discrimination particularly when one of

the appellants all the three times finally ranked in the merit

list for the degree course. It was contended that at the time of

filling of the form for the degree course the eligibility criteria

did not  specify  that  only pre-2012 diploma holders  will  be

considered as candidates for the degree course.  As a matter of

fact, the selection procedure was arbitrarily changed after the

appellants  were  selected  and  called  for  giving  sponsorship

certificate.  Mr. Ahmadi also referred to some decisions to the

proposition  that  inter  se  merit  cannot  be  overlooked  to

promote seniority which has no place in the MCI Regulations.

9

Page 10

12.  Per contra,  Mr.  Kalyan Bandopadhyay,  learned senior

counsel appearing for the respondents, at the very outset fairly

submitted that he has nothing to say so far the merits of the

appellants  are  concerned.   But  the  action  taken  by  the

respondents  cannot  be  held  to  be  mala fide.   Indisputably,

appellants got the benefit of three years of service.  It is not the

case of admission in the open category.

13. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court

will  show  the  reasons  assigned  for  giving  priority  to  those

Doctors  who  have  completed  their  diploma  courses  much

before the appellants.  Admittedly, the Government has given

opportunity to those Doctors, who had got one specialization

more  than  three  years  back  and  they  are  senior  to  the

appellants.   The High Court  also took note  of  the fact that

there  is  a  huge  deficiency  of  Doctors  in  the  State  and  the

Government  is  contemplating  of  opening  of  new

super-specialty hospitals by the year 2015-16.

10

Page 11

14. From perusal of the relevant Rule, it is evident that the

placement  of  the  Doctors  shall  be  at  the  discretion  of  the

Government.  Merely because the appellants were allowed in

the examination and found place in the select list does not give

them  right  as  in-house  Doctors  to  get  priority  above  their

seniors.

15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we

do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

However, we record the assurance given by Mr. Bandopadhyay

that the appellants will be given sponsorship for the next year

2016-17.

16. For  the  aforesaid  reason,  we  dismiss  these  appeals.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………………J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

……………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi September 01, 2015

11