Allowed

Dr Bhoomika Sachacher v. Union of India through Director General of Health Services

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2023WPC/286/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed two writ petitions filed by Clinical Psychologists aggrieved by the Rehabilitation Council of India's retrospective disqualification policy barring Ph.D. holders from registration. The Court held that applying the policy retrospectively to those admitted before the 2010 decision violated legitimate expectation and directed the Director General to register the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Director, Rehabilitation Council of India directed to register petitioners in Central Rehabilitation Register within two months.

Dr Bhoomika Sachacher Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No.286 of 2021

¶2

Dr. Bhoomika Sachacher

¶3

Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India through Director General of Health Services, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶6

Rehabilitation Council of India, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi.

¶7

Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi.

¶8

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice Empowerment, New Delhi.

¶9

.. ... ... Respondent(s)

¶10

With

¶11

W. P. (C) No.2517 of 2021

¶12

Dr. Shivani .... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶13

Versus

¶14

Union of India through Director General of Health Services, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶15

Rehabilitation Council of India, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi.

¶16

Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi.

¶17

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice Empowerment, New Delhi. .. ... ... Respondent(s)

¶18

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶19

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratush Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI

¶20

Mrs. Alpana Verma, CGC Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC Mr. Vikash Kumar, CGC

¶21

C.A.V. ON 14.09.2023 PRONOUNCED ON 6 .10.2023

¶22

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Both the Writ Petitions arise out of a common issue, as such, both are being heard together and will be disposed of by this common order.

¶24

Petitioners completed their Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Central Institute of Psychiatry (for short CIP-R-3) in 2016 and are aggrieved on being disqualified by Rehabilitation Council of India (for short RCI-R-2) from practicing as Clinical Psychologist.

¶25

Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia for issuing appropriate writ of mandamus directing RCI (R-2) from giving retrospective effect to its decision dated 30.11.2010 and to register the name of Petitioner in Central Rehabilitation Register.

¶26

¶27

Petitioners are Clinical Psychologists by profession who had applied for admission in Ph. D. Course at Central Institute of Psychiatry (in short CIP) (Resp.3) in the year 2008 for the Session commencing from the year 2009. As per the Course offered, the petitioners opted for Clinical Psychology. After fulfilling all the criteria, the petitioners were admitted in the Course which commenced from 1^st May, 2009 and the Ph. D. Registration was made by the Ranchi University on 06.01.2011 and in the year 2012, requisite fee for registration of Ph.D. was deposited by the petitioner(s).

¶28

Petitioners cleared the final examination and was awarded degree in the year 2017. Petitioners vide Reference No. Dir/ 640 dated 03.11.2020 and Dir/679 dated 25.11.2020 received the course transit for Ph. D. in Clinical Psychology from the Director, CIP (R-No.3).

¶29

The main grievance of the petitioners is that they had joined Ph.D. Course under the expectation of practicing as Clinical Psychologist before the decision was taken to disqualify.

¶30

Petitioners are aggrieved as being not registered in the Central Rehabilitation Register of RCI to practice as Clinical Psychologist and being aggrieved by the non-registration, the instant Writ Petition(s) has been filed.

¶31

Learned ASGI appearing for the Respondents (Rehabilitation Council of India) has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that Ph.D. qualification was considered for registration in Central Rehabilitation Register till December, 2009 and as per the norms, the candidate(s) who had completed their Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology in CIP, Ranchi till December, 2009 were considered for registration. However, vide Letter dated 09.04.2013 issued by the Chairperson of the Rehabilitation Council of India, it was communicated to the Director, CIP, Ranchi that Ph.D. Degree in any Branch of Psychology (Clinical /counselling/ mental health/ health psychologist etc.) was not proved by the council for registration since Ph.D. degree was basically a research degree with non-emphasis on clinical skills and practice guidelines.

¶32

It is submitted that hence, Ph.D. holder in any branch of Psychology was eligible to serve as Clinical Psychologist with responsibilities as defined in Para-3. This Letter was issued pursuant to the decision taken in the

¶33

¶34

meeting of the Expert Committee for the Development of Training Programmes held on April, 26-27, 2010 & RCI. The letter for registration was sent by Respondent no.3 (Director, CIP, Ranchi) on 11.05.2010 to the Registrar, Ranchi University for registration of the petitioners in the Ph.D. Programme on the basis of which they were registered on 21.04.2012.

¶35

The short question that falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled for registration in Central Rehabilitation Register on the premise that they had been admitted to the Ph. D. Course in the year 2009 in the subject of Clinical Psychologist under the legitimate expectation of practicing as a Clinical Psychologist?

¶36

It is not in dispute that the petitioners were admitted in Ph.D. (Clinical Psychology) for the Academic Sessions 2009-12 in CIP, Kanke, Ranchi. They completed their course and duly obtained degree for the same from Ranchi University in the year 2016. It is also not in dispute that Ph.D. degree holder from CIP in any Branch of Psychology is eligible to serve as Clinical Psychologist till December, 2009.

¶37

The letter for registration in Ranchi University of these petitioners for Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology students was sent vide letter dated 11.05.2010 of the Director, CIP to the Registrar, Ranchi University. The letter of request was sent to the Secretary-cum-Chairperson, Rehabilitation Council of India for registration of direct Ph.D. (Clinical Psychology) candidates who passed out from CIP vide letter of the Director dated 23.12.2019.

¶38

The only ground is the decision of the Rehabilitation Council of India taken in its meeting held on 26.04.2010 and 27.04.2010 that the candidates having degree in Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology cannot be registered as Rehabilitation Council of India professional in the Central Rehabilitation Register. This had been notified and published in its 24^th Annual Report 2010-11.

¶39

Without going into the merit of the decision taken by the Rehabilitation Council of India, this Court is of the view that the said decision cannot be applied retrospectively so as to impair the career prospect of the candidates who had taken admission in the course before the said decision. This will not only amount to retrospective operation of the

¶40

¶41

decision adversely affecting the candidates who had taken admission before such a decision had been taken, it will also be against the principle of legitimate expectation.

¶42

Under the circumstance, the Director, Rehabilitation Council of India (R-2) is directed to register the name of the petitioners in Central Rehabilitation Register within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶43

Both the writ petitions are allowed.

¶44

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 06^th October, 2023 NAFR/ Sandeep

¶45

Uploaded

Dr Bhoomika Sachacher v. Union of India through Director General of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Bhoomika Sachacher v. Union of India through Director General of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Binit Kumar Shrivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Tandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Tandon Alias Pradeep Tandon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Sood Vs the State of Jharkhand