http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. V. NAGARAJU AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/09/1998

BENCH: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, S.RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Rajendra Babu.J. The respondents  were  working  as  Civil  Assistant Surgeons  in  the  rural  service  of  the  State  of Andhra Pradesh, appeared for the entrance test  and  were  selected for  undergoing  the  course of Post Graduation in different subjects.  The entrance examination was  conducted  for  the academic years  1986-87  and  1987-88.  The respondents were not selected towards the quota of reserved category for  the inservice  candidates  and  their selection fell outside the quota reserved for such candidates.  The Director of  Health and Family  Welfare  issued  a circular in Rc.No.  19636/E6A 88.  Dated 14.6.1988  to  the  effect  that  candidates  who secured a certificate from the Principal concerned that they were  selected  for  the Post Graduation Courses against the seats allotted for unserved candidates quota alone  will  be paid their  salaries.  The respondents challenged the action of the Director before the Tribunal.  The  Tribunal  on  the basis  of  the  interpretation  placed on the relevant Rules held that all unserved candidates are eligible to get  their salaries whether they are selected against unserved quota or outside  such  quota  and,  therefore,  the Director was not competent to issue such instruction which is contrary to the relevant rules.  The Tribunal concluded that the respondents would be entitled to get their salaries light from the  time they  joined the post graduate courses till the end of their courses and the same should be paid without any delay.   The State  being  aggrieved by the action of the respondents has filed these appeals. The principal  question  arising  for  consideration before  us  is  whether  the  inservice  candidates  who are selected outside the quota reserved for inservice candidates could also be entitled to the same  benefits  as  candidates selected against such reserved quota. Rules have been framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh  known as  ’Rules  for  Admission  to  Post Graduate Courses in the Medical Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh’.    Rule  3 provides for  reservations.    Rule  3(2) states that 15% of seats in clinical subjects, in Medicne, Surgery,  Obstetrics and  Gynecology  groups  and  30%  of  seats in Non-Clinical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

subjects  or  in  each  group  are  reserved  for  inservice candidates, the reservation of inservice candidates shall be applicable in each categories.  Candidates selected on merit in  respective categories shall be counted against inservice quota.  Explanation added thereto states that  an  inservice candidate  is  one  who  has  put  in a minimum of two years service on duty in the respective service.  The  Govt.    in the Memorandum  No.   1209/E2/88-2 dated 28th November, 1988 stated that only the inservice candidates who  are  selected against the quota provided in Rule 3(2) read with Rule 19(1) alone are  entitled for deputation.  The Rule 19(1) reads as follows:-           "Rule 19(1) In-service candidates (of the  Medica           and  Health  Department  ) who have put in a rural           service of two years  on  duty  or  more  and  are           selected  for  admission  in clinical subjects and           non-clinical  subjects  will  be  deputed  to  the           Post-graduate studies." Sub-rule (2) thereof states that any candidate in Government service  other  than the "inservice" candidate defined under rule 3(2) if selected for any Post Graduate course shall not be entitled for any kind of leave  including  extra-ordinary leave   without  allowances  for  prosecuting  Post-Graduate Courses, unless he has put in a  minimum  of  two  years  of service on duty in the respective service.  Rule  11(8)  provides for stipends. It is made clear that an inservice candidate shall not be  paid  stipends  if they  draw  leave  salary  but they will be paid stipends if they are sanctioned extraordinary leave. The Tribunal in the present case has interpreted Rule 19(2) as to mean that  all those candidates who have put in a service of minimum of two years  if  selected  for  post  graduate  courses  would  be entitled to the same benefits as candidates  who  have  been selected   against   the   reserved   quota  for  unreserved candidates relying upon explanation to Rule 3(2). The learned counsel for the appellants seriously  challenged this  view of the Tribunal and submitted that the concept of inservice candidates has got to  be  understood  by  reading Rule   3(2)   and   explanation  thereof  together  and  not separately. However, Shri Kanta Rao and Shri Subba Rao,  learned counsel  for  the  respondents submitted that as long as the respondents answer the description of  inservice  candidates as provided in the explanation to Rule 3(2) there should not be  any  kind  of distinction between those who are selected against the reserved quota and those  who  are  selected  on merit  and  the  two  should be categorised together and all benefits given to them should be common. Shri Kanta Rao, learned counsel for the  respondents very  vehemently  submitted  that  there cannot be different classes of persons in the same service and relied  upon  the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr.P.Indra Devi Vs   Selection   Committee   Constituted  for  selection  of candidates for P.G.Medical courses in the S.V.University for the year 1985-86 represented by its  Chairman,  Director  of Medical Education. Hyderabad and Others recorted in 1986 (2) ALT 433. That decision is only to the effect of enabling all eligible  candidates  whether  against  inservice  quotas or otherwise to participate in the examinations for  selection. The  other two decisions in 1983 SC 803 and 1998 (1) SCC 727 relied upon by the learned counsel have no relevance to  the present case. The  meaning  to  be  attributed  to  the expression "inservice candidates" in 19(2) will have to  be  understood with  reference to Rule 3(2) along with explanation thereof.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

The candidates who have  been  selected  against  the  quota reserved in  rule  3(2)  have got to be  in rural service of two years on duty or more and have got to be selected in the appropriate subjects leading  to  their  being  deputed  for post-graduate  studies.  If  we read rule 19 along with Rule 3(2) it becomes clear that an inservice candidate is one who has put in a minimum of  two  years  service  in  respective fields  in  the  rural  areas  and  is  selected against the reserved quota and not all candidates  who  have  put  in  2 years  rural  service  and  are  selected  to  Post Graduate studies. Thus the view taken by the Tribunal on the  meaning of  inservice  candidates  suffers  from  fallacy of reading rules in compartments and  not together.  The  intention  of the  Government  in  framing these rules in clear that it is only those candidates who have  been  selected  against  the reserved  quota  who  will be entitled to be deputed and not others that is why sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 provided that  if any candidate in Government service other than the inservice candidates  is  selected  for  any  post  graduation courses should not be entitled  for  any  kind  of  leave  including extra-ordinary  leave  without  allowances  for  prosecuting Post-Graduate Coursed, unless he has put in a minimum of two years of service on  duty  in  the  respective  service.  In Government  service  there are two kinds of candidates those who are selected against reserved quota and  those  who  are selected otherwise than such quota. Those candidates who are covered  by  Rule  3(2)  are  those  who  have been selected against the quota  reserved  for  the  inservice  candidates while  others who are in Government service are selected are those who fall outside such category.  The  former  will  be entitled to extra-ordinary leave or other kinds of leave for prosecuting  the  Post  Graduate  studies  and the condition thereto is that they should have  put  in  aminimum  of  two years  service.  Therefore,  the  view taken by the Tribunal that the respondents will be treated at par with  the  other inservice  candidates cannot be upheld and the order made by the Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case. we  think  if  any amount  of  money has been paid to any of the respondents on the basis that there is no distinction between the inservice candidates and other candidates in  Government  service  who have  been  selected  to  the Post Graduate studies the same shall not be recovered. Subject to what we have stated regarding recovery of the amounts the appeals shall stand allowed  and  the  order made by the Tribunal shall stand set aside. The applications filed  by  the  respondents  before  the Tribunal shall also stand dismissed.