1993 (7) TMI 344 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of State Legislature under Article 252.
2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) - Fundamental Right to Practice.
3. Violation of Article 14 - Arbitrariness and Unreasonableness.
4. Repugnancy to Indian Medical Council Act, 1961.
5. Discrimination between WBMES and WBHS.
6. Constitutionality of Sections 4(3), 6(2), 9, 10, 11, 12, 14(2A) of the Act.
7. Constitutionality of Rules 7, 8, 9, 10 of the Rules.
8. Mala fide transfer orders.
9. Discrimination in retirement age.
10. Impact on seniority and pay due to "Pay to Post" rule.
11. Non-constitution of WBHS before exercising option.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of State Legislature under Article 252:
The appellants argued that the State Legislature lacked competence to pass the West Bengal State Health Service Act, 1990, violating Article 252 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Act was enacted under Entry 41 of the State List, empowering the State to constitute State Public Services and lay down conditions of service under Article 309. Thus, the Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) - Fundamental Right to Practice:
The appellants contended that Section 9 of the Act violated their fundamental right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) by prohibiting private practice for members of the WBMES. The Court rejected this, stating that the Act did not regulate the practice of medical practitioners in general but only those who voluntarily joined the State Service. The restriction was deemed reasonable and in the interest of public service, with non-practicing allowance compensating for the prohibition.

3. Violation of Article 14 - Arbitrariness and Unreasonableness:
The appellants argued that the Act was arbitrary and violated Article 14 due to unreasonable classification between WBMES and WBHS. The Court found the classification reasonable, as the duties and functions of the two services differed significantly. The prohibition on private practice for WBMES was justified to improve medical education standards, while WBHS members were allowed limited private practice under specific conditions.

4. Repugnancy to Indian Medical Council Act, 1961:
The appellants claimed the Act was repugnant to Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act, which entitles registered medical practitioners to practice anywhere in India. The Court held that the Act and the Central Act occupied different fields, with the former regulating State Health Services and the latter governing medical practitioners' registration and privileges. There was no repugnancy, as the Act did not infringe on the Central Act's domain.

5. Discrimination between WBMES and WBHS:
The appellants argued that the classification between WBMES and WBHS was discriminatory. The Court held that the classification was based on valid differences in duties and functions, with WBMES focusing on teaching and research, necessitating a ban on private practice to maintain high educational standards. The WBHS members, primarily involved in patient care, were allowed limited private practice without compromising their duties.

6. Constitutionality of Sections 4(3), 6(2), 9, 10, 11, 12, 14(2A) of the Act:
- Section 4(3): The Court upheld the provision allowing transfers between WBHS and Public Health-cum-Administration Unit, stating it was a matter of executive policy.
- Section 6(2): The Court clarified that the section did not grant a right to practice but allowed the State to regulate practice privileges.
- Section 9: The prohibition of private practice for WBMES was deemed reasonable and in public interest.
- Section 10: Similar to Section 9, the prohibition for Public Health-cum-Administration Unit was upheld.
- Section 11: The continuation of terms and conditions for former WBHS members was found valid.
- Section 12: The option mechanism for teaching and non-teaching posts was upheld.
- Section 14(2A): The Court read down "shall" to "may," allowing flexibility in appointing non-teaching doctors to teaching posts.

7. Constitutionality of Rules 7, 8, 9, 10 of the Rules:
- Rule 7: The Court upheld the qualifications and designations for Medical Officers and Specialists in WBHS.
- Rule 8: The prohibition of private practice in specific institutions was deemed reasonable.
- Rules 9 and 10: The limited privilege of private practice for certain posts was upheld, with the State retaining the right to withdraw it.

8. Mala fide transfer orders:
The appellants alleged mala fide in transfer orders issued before the expiry of the stipulated period. The Court found no evidence of prejudice or mala fide intent, stating that the orders did not affect the appellants' right to exercise their option.

9. Discrimination in retirement age:
The appellants argued that different retirement ages for WBMES (60 years) and WBHS (58 years) were discriminatory. The Court held that the distinction was justified, given the different roles and responsibilities of the two services.

10. Impact on seniority and pay due to "Pay to Post" rule:
The appellants contended that the "Pay to Post" rule adversely affected seniority and pay. The Court found no merit in this argument, stating that seniority and pay were protected, and the rule rationalized pay scales.

11. Non-constitution of WBHS before exercising option:
The appellants argued that the non-constitution of WBHS before exercising the option rendered the process ineffective. The Court held that the Act provided sufficient information for an informed choice, and the subsequent constitution of WBHS did not invalidate the option mechanism.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the validity of the West Bengal State Health Service Act, 1990, and the associated Rules. The Court found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 254, and deemed the classifications and restrictions reasonable and in public interest. The appellants were granted time until August 10, 1993, to exercise their option to join WBMES.