AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Shinde, J
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fled seeking direction to Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the notifcation dated
02.08.2019 and letter dated 21st/22nd January 2020. It is further prayed that respondents be restrained from conducting the examination on 27.02.2020
to 29.02.2020 and further restrain them from making appointment for the post of Community Health Provider as per the schedule declared by
Maharashtra University of Health Science (MUHS).
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the Government of Maharashtra cannot discriminate between the degree holders Bachelor of
Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) and Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (B.U.M.S.) since it would amount to violation of article
16(1) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that, B.U.M.S. practitioners are entitled and eligible for appointment for Community Health Provider
under the National Health Mission, but initially the Government of Maharashtra has discriminated by only inviting application’s from the candidates
who are having B.A.M.S. degree. However, subsequently the Government of Maharashtra has agreed to include B.U.M.S. in the advertisement and
advertisement dated 12.02.2019 has been issued by Respondent No. 2 thereby including B.U.M.S. degree holders for appointment of Community
Health Offcers and it was mentioned that training period will be of six months. It is submitted that, though initially it was written that training period
will be six months, however, subsequently Respondent stated that the Petitioners and other UNANI degree holder’s have to complete eight
months training.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no reason for discrimination between B.A.M.S. candidates and UNANI candidates while
prescribing six months training for B.A.M.S. candidates and eight months for UNANI candidates. It is further submitted that respondents failed to
justify the said discrimination and Respondent No. 2 has issued circular dated 02.08.2019 and in the said circular they have included B.Sc. (Nursing)
along with UNANI and the B.Sc. (Nursing) is only to take training for six months and B.U.M.S. degree holder has to take eight months training which
is contrary to the law and such circular has been issued with the sole purpose to discriminate qualifcation of B.A.M.S., B.U.M.S. and B.Sc. (Nursing)
as B.A.M.S. and B.Sc.(Nursing) holder’s have to complete training in six months while the B.U.M.S. holder have to wait for two more months.
On the other hand learned AGP appearing for State and its offcials submit that out of 196 candidates who possess B.U.M.S., 180 have accepted
the decision of the Government and only Petitioners are opposing the said decision to have eight months training. It is submitted that there are valid
reasons stated in the documents submitted with the affdavit in reply for having training of eight months to the B.U.M.S. candidates like Petitioners.
Therefore, relying upon the averments in the affdavit in reply, learned AGP submits that, the petition may be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition, so also affdavit in reply fled on behalf of Respondent
No. 2 and 3. It is stated in the affdavit in reply that Government of India on 12.02.2019 sent the letter to the Respondent No. 2 wherein it is mentioned
that Task Force Committee was constituted and the said committee has submitted recommendations to the Ministry. The Task Force Committee
conducted the review of feasibility of utilizing services of UNANI practitioner as a mid-level help provider and submitted fnal recommendation
wherein it was specifcally pointed out the units not covered in B.U.M.S. curriculum, units which are covered partially and units which have been
covered in detail and would need only minimal/ refresher training. The Task Force Committee has recommended the following actions:-
“Use the present CPCH Curriculum for training the B.U.M.S. graduate to Mid Level Health Providerâ€.
Increase the counseling hours from theory from present 120 to 174 hours. Though the sub-committee recommended equal increase in the number
of study hours, it was decided that increase in number of hours for self-study and skill based training has to be undertaken in the same proportion as
those recommended for IGNOU CPCH. Thus, the self study hours will increase from 120 to 174, maintaining the duration of theory, practical study
hours to be 4:5 the total duration of practical training will increase to 435 hours. Therefore, total duration of the programme will increase from present
540 hours to 783 hours (Theory Counseling Hours 174, self study 174 hours and Skill based hands on training to 435 hours). Topic wise requirement of
additional teaching hours for theory agreed upon by the Task Force is attached as Table 1.
On the basis of said recommendation from the Task Force Committee to the Government of India, the offce of Respondent No. 2 issued letter
dated 21st / 22nd January 2020 and as per the said recommendation, committee decided to extend the training hours from 520 hours to 783 hours for
covering additional topics of B.U.M.S. graduates.
It is further stated in the affdavit in reply that, after completion of six months training along with B.A.M.S. candidates, as per the Government of
India direction four training centers are identifed for extended 263 hours to B.U.M.S. candidates. Counseling of 196 candidates was organized on
07.02.2020 and they were allotted training centers. Approximately 180 candidates have joined training and pursuing training lectures to improve their
skills.
The decision to have the training of eight months to the B.U.M.S. candidates is based upon the recommendation of the Task Force Committee to
the Government of India. The said recommendations of the Task Force Committee are after proper research and study and, therefore, it cannot be
said that recommendation to have training for 783 hours instead of 520 hours to the B.U.M.S. practitioner's is arbitrary. In that view of the matter, in
our considered opinion, no case is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.