Disposed

Dr. Keshav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC29 May 2020L.P.A/257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal summarily. Relying on its own judgment in Ankit Abhishek and the Apex Court decision in Saurabh Dwivedi, it held doctors serving in specified government areas are entitled to incentives under Regulation 9(IV), leaving no issue open for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of making the directions in Ankit Abhishek applicable to the appellants.

Dr. Keshav Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.257 of 2020 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5624 of 2020

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Dr. Keshav, male, aged about 37 years, S/o Dr. Ashok Kumar R/o House No. A1661, Devi Sthan Road, Mahuabagh, (Near Jagdeo Path), Dhanaut, Sahay Nagar, P.S.- Rupaspur, District Patna.

¶5

Dr. Amrita Rashmi, female, aged about 35 years, D/o Dr. Ashok Kumar, R/o House No. A1661, Devi Sthan Road, Mahuabagh, (Near Jagdeo Path), Dhanaut, Sahay Nagar, P.S.- Rupaspur, District Patna.

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, IAS Association Building, Patna through the Chairman.

¶10

1. The Controller of Examinations, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna.

¶11

1. The Officer on Special Duty, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna.

¶12

1. The Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi. ……. Respondent/s

¶13

1. Kamal Kumar, aged about 30 years, s/o- Tulsi Saw, Address- Pachna Road, Sansar, Pokhar, Nagar Bazar, Near Shiv Temple, Lakhisarai, Bihar, 811311

¶14

1. Md. Saiful Rahman, aged about 29 years, M, s/o- Md. Faizul Rahman, R/oMiyachak, Near Sanichara Asthan, Begusarai, P.S. Begusarai, Distt. Begusarai.

¶15

1. Chandan Kumar, aged about 29 years, M, s/o- Dasrath Prasad, r/o- Vill & PO Chaugain, P.S. Morar, Distt. Buxar.

¶16

1. Hareram Prajapati, aged about 32 years, M, S/o- Dharam Nath Prajapati, r/oVill- Jataur, P.O. Belaur, P.S. Guthani, Distt- Siwan.

¶17

1. Vikash Kumar, aged about 28 years, M, s/o- Ramesh Prasad, r/o- Teacher Colony, Ramchandrapur, Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri, Distt- Nalanda.

¶18

1. Kumar Shivam, aged about 28 years, M, s/o- Rakesh Kumar, r/o- Lohia Nagar, P.S.- Patrkarnagar, Kankarbagh, Distt- Patna.

¶19

1. Abhinav Kumar, aged about 24 years, M, s/o- Satyendra Prasad, r/o- VillBeldarbigha, P.O. Goraur, P.S. Chabilapur, Distt- Nalanda.

¶20

1. Chandan Kumar Singh, aged about 27 years, M, s/o- Ashok Kumar Singh, r/o- Vill & P.O.- Mokari, P.S.- Bhabhua, Distt- Kaimur.

¶21

Patna High Court L.P.A No.257 of 2020 dt.29-05-2020

¶22

2/6

¶23

Abhinav Kumar, aged about 25 years, M, s/o- Anil Prasad, r/o- Vill & P.O.Rasonk, P.S. Morakhi, Distt- Khagaria.

¶24

... ... Intervenor/Respondent/s

¶25

=================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s :	=================================== Mr.Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
For the Respondent. : Nos. 1 to 3 For the Respondent	Mr. Ajay, G.A.-5
Nos.4 to 6 :	Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.7:	Mr. Kumar Brij Nandan, Advocate
For the Intervenor- :	Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Respondent No.8	Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Intervenor	Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate
Respondents No.9 to 16. ===================	Mr. Amresh Kumar, Sinha, Advocate ===================================

¶26

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR

¶28

======================================================

¶29

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/ Hon’ble Judge through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

Date : 29-05-2020

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenors.

¶34

Two intervention applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants praying therein that they may be impleaded as party respondents.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, both the interlocutory applications stand allowed.

¶36

Patna High Court L.P.A No.257 of 2020 dt.29-05-2020 3/6

¶37

Registry to make necessary corrections in the cause

¶38

title.

¶39

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.257 of 2020

¶40

The learned Single Judge disposed of the petitioners/appellants’ writ petition (CWJC No.5624 of 2020 titled as Dr. Keshav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) vide judgement dated 07.05.2020 holding that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Saurabh Chuahdry & Ors. Versus the Union of India & ors ., (2003) 11 SCC 146, the State was well within its right to fill up 50% State Quota Seats of Bihar in terms of the prospectus issued by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board for the PGMAC 2020.

¶41

In so far as the petitioners/appellants’ claim for benefit under and in terms of Regulation 9(IV) notified by the Medical Council of India vide Notification No.MCI-18(1)/2010Mad/62052 dated 15^th February, 2012 and as amended subsequently vide Notification No. MCI-18(1)/2018Med./100818 dated 05.04.2018, learned Single Judge, in view of the decision rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.15523 of 2018 titled as Dr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar & Anr. Versus the State of Bihar on 27.04.2020, left the

¶42

Patna High Court L.P.A No.257 of 2020 dt.29-05-2020 4/6

¶43

issue open, more so when the State, as is evident from para-7 of the impugned judgement had intended to prefer an appeal against the said judgement. The issue on this point was thus left open, making the parties bound by the outcome of the decision in the appeal which the State had proposed to file.

¶44

We notice that the petitioners/appellants had also referred to and relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Saurabh Dwivedi and others Versus Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 626 , in relation to which the learned Single Judge did not return any finding, perhaps, in view of the Letters Patent Appeal which was sought to be filed by the State.

¶45

Sri Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants clarifies that he does not press the appeal with regard to the finding of Institutional preference as returned by the learned Single Judge. Petitioners/appellants herein restrict their benefit and confine their pleas with regard to their entitlement and grant of incentive under Regulation 9(IV).

¶46

It is not in dispute that on this issue the appeal preferred by the State as also one of the interventionist stands adjudicated by this Court in terms of the judgement dated 28.05.2020 passed in LPA No. 255 of 2020 titled as Ankit Abhishek Vs. Dr.Ravi Ranjan Kumar & Ors and LPA No.256 of

¶47

Patna High Court L.P.A No.257 of 2020 dt.29-05-2020 5/6

¶48

2020 titled as The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar & Ors., holding the doctors who have served the State in the areas specified by the State in terms of proviso to Regulation 9(IV) to be entitled to the incentives in terms thereof.

¶49

It is in this backdrop, Sri Patanjali Rishi states that the petitioners/appellants’ appeal can also be disposed of to which both Shri. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor respondents and Sri Mrigank Mauli, learned Counsel for the intervenor respondents have no objection.

¶50

In Ankit Abhishek (supra), we have extensively dealt with the rights and entitlement of the doctors, who have served in any one of the areas specified by the State, holding them to be entitled to the benefits of the incentives in terms of Regulation 9(IV), of course, subject to verification of service record.

¶51

At this stage, Shri Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants states that even otherwise, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Saurabh Dwivedi (supra ). In view of our findings returned in Ankit Abhishek (supra), we need not, at this stage, go into this question.

¶52

Patna High Court L.P.A No.257 of 2020 dt.29-05-2020 6/6

¶53

As such, as prayed for, by the appellants/writ petitioners, the appeal stands disposed of making the directions contained in the judgement dated 28.05.2020 passed in Ankit Abhishek (supra) applicable, mutatis mutandis, also to the instant appellants/writ petitioners.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶56

(S. Kumar, J)

¶57

P.K.P./-

¶58

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	29.05.2020
Transmission Date

Dr. Keshav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Keshav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Abhishek Vs Dr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar

The State of Bihar Vs Dr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar

Mahesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Singh, Vs The State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Sangita Devi Vs The State of Bihar