Case Background
The case arose from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8825 of 2020 before the Patna High Court.
A group of doctors working as Ayush Medical Officers on contract basis in Bihar health services approached the Court. They held the degree of G.A.M.S. (Graduate in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery).
The State Government had framed “The Bihar District Ayush Medical/State Ayush Medical Service (Appointment on Regular/Contract Basis and Service Conditions) Rules, 2010.” These rules governed appointments to District Ayush Medical and State Ayush Medical Services posts.
In 2017, the State notified the Bihar District Ayush Medical/State Ayush Medical Service (Appointment on Regular/Contract Basis and Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2017 by notification dated 20 November 2017. Under this amendment, Clause (e) of Rule 4, Chapter 2 of the 2010 Rules was substituted and the educational qualification for the relevant posts was changed.
Later, the Bihar Technical Service Commission issued Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20 for permanent recruitment to District Ayush Medical and State Ayush Medical Services posts. According to the petitioners, the advertisements did not recognise G.A.M.S. as an eligible qualification and instead required B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) or an equivalent degree as defined in the amended rules.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20 and a direction to allow them to participate in the permanent recruitment process.
During the pendency of the case, the third petitioner, Dr. Shivnath Mahto, passed away. The Court therefore noted that the writ petition, as far as he was concerned, did not survive for consideration.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners’ main grievance was that, despite being already appointed on contract as Ayush Medical Officers, they were being excluded from permanent recruitment. They argued that their G.A.M.S. degree should be treated as equivalent to B.A.M.S., making them eligible under the advertisements.
They contended that Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20 were “in teeth of” a judgment of the Supreme Court and contrary to settled legal principles. In particular, they relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine vs. State of Bihar and Others,” reported in (2007) 12 SCC 728.
According to the petitioners, this Supreme Court judgment had held that a G.A.M.S. degree is equivalent to a B.A.M.S. degree. They argued that, in light of this binding pronouncement, the Bihar Technical Service Commission could not deprive G.A.M.S. degree holders from taking part in the recruitment process. They submitted that such exclusion was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the law declared by the Supreme Court.
On this basis, the petitioners sought two main reliefs. First, they asked for a writ of certiorari to quash Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20. Second, they sought a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction commanding the authorities to allow them to participate in the permanent recruitment process under those advertisements.
The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the Bihar Technical Service Commission, opposed the petition. They relied on the statutory framework governing Ayush appointments after the 2017 amendment to the 2010 Rules.
The Court examined the Bihar District Ayush Medical/State Ayush Medical Service (Appointment on Regular/Contract Basis and Service Conditions) Rules, 2010 and the 2017 Amendment Rules. The key change, as noted by the Court, was the substitution of Clause (e) of Rule 4, Chapter 2 by the 2017 amendment notification dated 20 November 2017.
In terms of this substitution, the educational qualification for the posts advertised was no longer G.A.M.S. The petitioners were admittedly qualified only with the G.A.M.S. degree, and the amended rules did not include G.A.M.S. in the specified qualification for the posts.
The crucial legal question, therefore, was whether the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncement equating G.A.M.S. with B.A.M.S. could override the specific educational qualification prescribed under the amended statutory rules as they stood on the date of the advertisement.
The Court held that the petitioners’ reliance on the 2007 Supreme Court decision was misplaced in the circumstances. It reasoned that the 2017 amendment changed the qualification requirement from the very inception of the 2010 Rules, due to the nature of the substitution.
The Court observed that as long as the amended Rules of 2017, particularly the substituted Clause (e) of Rule 4, Chapter 2 of the 2010 Rules, remained in force without further amendment, the Court was bound to apply those rules to determine eligibility.
To explain this approach, the Court relied on another Supreme Court judgment, “Nair Service Society vs. T. Beermasthan,” reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545. The Court quoted paragraphs 47 and 48 of that decision.
In “Nair Service Society,” the Supreme Court had discussed how appointments must be made strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules of the particular State. It emphasised that judgments in service jurisprudence have to be understood with reference to the specific rules governing that field, and that reservation and other provisions in service law are enabling provisions that may differ from State to State.
The Supreme Court also underscored that, where there is no challenge to the validity of the rules themselves, courts should focus on whether the rules have been correctly applied, instead of re-writing qualifications or procedures laid down in the rules.
Drawing guidance from this principle, the Patna High Court held that “whatever statutory Rule existing as on the date of impugned advertisement” must be taken into consideration before applying any ratio of a judicial pronouncement.
In this case, the governing rule on the date of Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20 was the 2010 Rules as amended by the 2017 Amendment Rules. Under these rules, the substituted Clause (e) of Rule 4, Chapter 2 did not recognise G.A.M.S. as the qualifying degree for the advertised posts.
The Court pointed out that there was no challenge before it to the legality or validity of the amended rules. The petitioners were not asking the Court to strike down or read down Clause (e) of Rule 4 as amended. Instead, they were asking the Court to ignore or bypass the rule on the strength of an earlier Supreme Court judgment on equivalence of degrees.
The High Court made it clear that such an approach was not permissible. So long as the substituted clause remained on the statute book and had not been amended by the State Government, the authorities were bound to follow it, and the Court could not grant eligibility contrary to the terms of the rule.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners, holding only G.A.M.S. degrees, were not eligible to apply for the posts of District Ayush Medical and State Ayush Medical Services advertised under Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20.
With this conclusion, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the advertisements and no ground to issue a mandamus to include the petitioners in the recruitment process. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for doctors and other professionals who seek government jobs in Bihar, especially in the Ayush sector. It makes clear that eligibility for recruitment will be judged strictly on the basis of the qualifications written in the current service rules, not on earlier practices or general expectations.
Even if a Supreme Court decision has once recognised equivalence between two degrees, that does not automatically change the wording of service rules. Unless the State amends its rules to reflect such equivalence, recruitment agencies like the Bihar Technical Service Commission will follow the exact qualifications written in the rules.
For contract appointees, the decision underlines that being already in service on contract does not guarantee eligibility for permanent posts if the formal rules prescribe a different qualification. To claim eligibility, either the rules must include their qualification, or they must challenge the rules themselves, not just the advertisement.
The ruling also reinforces, for future recruitment disputes in Bihar, that the Patna High Court will give priority to the statutory framework as it stands on the date of the advertisement. Individual candidates cannot rely on earlier judgments or assumptions to override clear rule-based qualifications.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether G.A.M.S. degree holders working as Ayush Medical Officers on contract were eligible to participate in permanent recruitment under Advertisement Nos. 4/20 to 9/20 issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission, by treating G.A.M.S. as equivalent to B.A.M.S. in light of a 2007 Supreme Court judgment.
Answer: No. The Court held that due to the 2017 amendment to the Bihar District Ayush Medical/State Ayush Medical Service Rules, which substituted the qualification clause and did not include G.A.M.S., the petitioners were not eligible, and the advertisements could not be quashed.
Issue: Whether the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 728, could override the educational qualification prescribed by the amended service rules.
Answer: No. The Court held that as long as the amended rules remained in force, they governed eligibility. Judicial pronouncements on equivalence could not be applied in a manner that disregarded existing statutory rules unless those rules were themselves challenged and modified.
Issue: Which legal framework should be applied when there is a conflict between earlier judicial observations and later statutory rules in matters of service recruitment.
Answer: The existing statutory rules as on the date of advertisement must be applied. Following the principle explained in Nair Service Society vs. T. Beermasthan, (2009) 5 SCC 545, service law disputes must be resolved with reference to the specific service rules governing that field.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 728 – cited by the petitioners to argue that G.A.M.S. is equivalent to B.A.M.S.
- Nair Service Society vs. T. Beermasthan, (2009) 5 SCC 545 – relied upon by the Court for the principle that service law judgments must be understood in light of specific service rules, and that existing statutory rules on the date of advertisement govern recruitment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8825 of 2020
Case Title: Dr. Styanarayan Paswan & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 379
Advocates:
- For the petitioners: Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rajeev Ranjant No. II, Advocate
- For the respondent/State: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, AC to SC 8
- For the Bihar Technical Service Commission: Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
- For the intervenor: Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
Nature of the case: Writ petition (service and recruitment – challenge to recruitment advertisement and claim for participation in selection process)
Date of Judgment: 04-04-2022
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the full judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
