Manisha Sankhla, And Ors vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notification dated 03rd July, 2014, alleging discrimination between similarly placed candidates by

reducing period of probation for MBBS degree holders appointed on the post of Senior Demonstrator.

Brief facts of the case :

An advertisement for the posts of Senior Demonstrator with different qualifications was issued in the year 2011. The petitioners are having

qualification of M.Sc., whereas, the others were having qualification of MBBS. The selection of the candidates holding both qualifications, referred to

above, was common. They were appointed from time to time. Subsequent to the appointment on the post of Senior Demonstrator for a period of two

years on probation on fixed remuneration, the respondents issued a Notification on 03rd July, 2014 to reduce the period of probation for those who are

having qualification of MBBS. In view of the above, the petitioners were required to undergo two years probation period having qualification of M.Sc.,

whereas, those who were having qualification of MBBS were required to undergo one year probation only. This made discrimination between similarly

situated candidates because those having qualification of MBBS could be fixed in the regular pay scale after completion of one year, whereas, other,

like the petitioners, holding qualification of M.Sc. could get regular pay scale on completion of two years of probation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that discrimination between similarly placed employees could not have been made. It is a case where

pursuant to an advertisement dated 13th May, 2011, the petitioners were appointed from time to time in the year 2013. It was on probation for a period

of two years on fixed remuneration. After appointment on the terms given above, a change was made by virtue of the Notification dated 03rd July,

2014 giving more advantage to MBBS degree holders. Their period of probation was curtailed by one year so as the period to get fixed remuneration.

It could not have been done by the respondents after the order of appointment. It is moreso when the recruitment for the post was common and the

advertisement did not carved out two categories of Senior Demonstrator. In view of the above, a challenge is made to the Notification dated 03rd July,

2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa & Ors. Vs.

Rasananda Das reported in (2004) 10 SCC 297. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the Notification dated 03rd July 2014.

Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the Notification under challenge.

We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The facts available on record show that an advertisement for selection to the post of Senior Demonstrator was issued on 13th May, 2011. The

petitioners and others, who remained successful, were given appointment on different dates in the year 2013. The perusal of the order of appointment

shows it to be on fixed remuneration for a period of two years on probation. Subsequent to the order of appointment, a Notification was issued on 03rd

July, 2014 to curtail the period of probation for those who are holding the qualification of MBBS. It alleged to have caused discrimination between

similarly situated candidates.

To address the issue aforesaid, it is required to be seen as to whether the candidates, appointed pursuant to one and the same selection, are similarly

situated.

If the consideration is made in reference to the qualification, it would come out that the petitioners are not similarly placed. They are holding

qualification of M.Sc. which is not four years’ course but of lesser duration, whereas, MBBS degree holders undergo four and half years’

course and one year’s compulsory internship and taking into consideration the aforesaid, the period of probation for them has been curtailed.

Taking into consideration the different qualifications and the period for studies, it cannot be said that the petitioners are similarly situated. It is apart

from the fact that curtailment of period of probation is in reference of the period of compulsory internship of one year. The MBBS candidates tender

service during the period of internship, rather, as per the reply given by the respondents, they need to give service beyond normal working hours and,

at times, round the clock. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find that the Notification has caused discrimination between similarly situated

candidates.

It is further to be noted that a challenge to the Notification dated 03rd July, 2014 has been made and if it is struck down, the consequence would be to

deny benefit of regular pay scale to the MBBS degree holders after one year, however, none has been impleaded as party respondent though their

rights would be affected. In view of the above, the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.

A prayer has further been made to allow similar benefits to the petitioners. We have already given reason not to accept the case of discrimination thus

the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be accepted.

We have considered the judgment in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa (supra). The perusal of the facts of that case show it to be different than

the facts of this case. The ratio propounded therein is on altogether different set of facts thus the judgment in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa

(supra) does not provide any assistance to the petitioners.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioners. It is, however, to be clarified that the issue pertaining to the

appointment on fixed remuneration for a period of two years was otherwise challenged and the matter is now sub judice before the Apex Court. If the

appeal, preferred by the State of Rajasthan, is dismissed, the petitioners would not be deprived to get consequential benefits. The aforesaid

clarification is required in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., DB Civil Writ Petition

No.2963/2007 decided vide order dated 29th July, 2015. It is further made clear that if fixation of salary has not been made properly in favour of the

petitioners and others, dismissal of the writ petition would not deprive them to seek a remedy for it, however, so far as the challenge made in the writ

petition is concerned, it does not sustain in view of the reasons given above.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition is dismissed.