2019 (12) TMI 1672 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of Estoppel - Non-consideration of appellant s work experience in an Army Hospital for grant of weightage and consequential selection and appointment as General Medical Officer in the State of Bihar - work experience not considered on the ground that Rule 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 mandated that only services rendered in employment of a hospital run by the Government of Bihar could count under the head of work experience - HELD THAT - The underlying objective of principle of Estoppel is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance - In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process. The question of permissibility of giving weightage for work experience in government hospitals is also not the bone of contention in this case. Medicine being an applied science cannot be mastered by mere academic knowledge. Longer experience of a candidate adds to his knowledge and expertise. Similarly, government hospitals differ from private hospitals vastly for the former have unique infrastructural constraints and deal with poor masses - The appellant has thus rightly not challenged the selection procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the respondents interpretation of work experience as part of merit determination. Since interpretation of a statute or rule is the exclusive domain of Courts, and given the scope of judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellant s challenge cannot be turned down at the threshold. Statutory Interpretation - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that executive actions like advertisements can neither expand nor restrict the scope or object of laws. It is therefore necessary to consider the interpretation of the phrase Government hospital as appearing in the Rules - The former interpretation to the term, as accorded to it by the respondents, forms a narrower class whereas the latter interpretation used by the appellant is broader and more inclusive. Literal Interpretation - HELD THAT - Presence of the word any in Rule 5 is also critical. It indicates a legislative intent to bestow a broad meaning to hospitals eligible for accrual of work experience. Importing the restrictive definition of Rule 2(a) would hence lead to an anomalous situation in having both expansive and restrictive adjectives applied to the same underlying noun. Consequently, an expansive interpretation of the phrase to be adopted, and not weight to be laid on Rule 2(a), as urged by the respondents - if faced between a choice in which only a few people would be eligible versus a fairly large group, we feel that the latter ought to be adopted to have a diverse pool of applicants. This would promote merit, bring better doctors and further the Constitutional scheme of providing equal opportunity in public employment to the masses - the provisions of the Rules in the case-at-hand cannot be construed or explained by applying the principle of literal interpretation. Purposive Interpretation - HELD THAT - The purpose behind formulation of the Rules was to recognize the unique challenges of hospitals in Bihar and in-centivise doctors to work in nonprivate hospitals. There is some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that Bihar is predominantly poor and thus requires doctors having exposure to such challenging environment as compared to their counterparts in private hospitals. Experience in a nonprivate hospital instills sensitivity in its doctors, making them more adept to understand the ail and agony of poor patients. Such experience will undoubtedly be useful in furthering the object of Government hospitals and must be given due weightage while selecting suitable candidates. Interpreting Government hospitals to include only a small class of persons who have worked under the Government of Bihar, is thus clearly erroneous and anti merit. Such an objective would not be defeated by the understanding of the Rules. Thus, Rule 5 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 are construed to include the experience gained by a doctor in any hospital run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other nonprivate hospital (including those run by the Central Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions; or other public authorities) within the territory of Bihar. Respondents are accordingly directed to rework and prepare a fresh merit list by granting due weightage to the appellant and other similarly placed candidates, within two months. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of work experience in non-Bihar Government hospitals for selection and appointment as General Medical Officer.
2. Interpretation of the term "Government hospital" under the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013.
3. Validity of Clause 5(iii) of the advertisement restricting work experience to hospitals run by the Government of Bihar.
4. Maintainability of the appellant's challenge after participating in the selection process.
5. Application of principles of statutory interpretation and purposive interpretation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Work Experience in Non-Bihar Government Hospitals:
The appellant challenged the exclusion of her work experience in an Army Hospital from being considered for weightage in the selection process for the post of General Medical Officer in Bihar. The Patna High Court had upheld the restriction that only work experience in hospitals run by the Government of Bihar would be considered, based on Rule 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Government Hospital":
The appellant argued that the term "Government hospital" should include any hospital run by the Central Government, State Government, or other public bodies within Bihar. The respondents contended that "Government hospital" should be limited to hospitals run by the Government of Bihar, as defined by Rule 2(a) of the Rules. The Supreme Court held that the term "Government hospital" should be interpreted broadly to include all non-private hospitals within Bihar, including those run by the Central Government, Municipalities, and Panchayati Raj Institutions.

3. Validity of Clause 5(iii) of the Advertisement:
The appellant contended that Clause 5(iii) of the advertisement, which restricted work experience to hospitals of the Government of Bihar, was contrary to the Rules. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the advertisement could not restrict the scope of the Rules, which did not limit work experience to only Bihar Government hospitals. The Court emphasized that the Rules should be interpreted to include experience gained in any non-private hospital within Bihar.

4. Maintainability of the Appellant's Challenge:
The respondents argued that the appellant could not challenge the selection process after participating in it and failing to secure a position. The Supreme Court clarified that while candidates generally cannot challenge the selection process after participating, this principle does not apply when the challenge is based on the misinterpretation of statutory rules leading to discrimination. The Court held that the appellant's challenge was maintainable as it concerned the interpretation of the Rules and potential constitutional violations.

5. Application of Principles of Statutory Interpretation and Purposive Interpretation:
The Supreme Court applied both literal and purposive interpretation principles. It noted that the term "Government hospital" should be interpreted in its common grammatical meaning, which includes all non-private hospitals. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation should avoid creating hardship, inconvenience, or absurdity. It also highlighted that the Rules should be interpreted in a manner that promotes constitutional values and provides equal opportunity in public employment. The Court concluded that the Rules should be interpreted to include experience gained in any non-private hospital within Bihar.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 5 and Rule 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013, should be interpreted to include work experience in any hospital run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other non-private hospital within Bihar. The respondents were directed to prepare a fresh merit list considering the appellant's and similarly placed candidates' work experience within two months. The Court clarified that the weightage for work experience would not affect the suitability assessment of candidates.