APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G. appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by learned Junior Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioners, in all these writ petitions, are doctors, who were engaged on contractual basis pursuant to a selection exercise conducted in the year 200304 and in the subsequent years by the respondentState. The common grievance of all the petitioners is that by a Notification dated 10th January, 2012, the RespondentState had chosen to lay down upper age limit of 50 years for General Category Candidates while 52 years for the Reserved Category and Female Category and 53 years for those belonging to Handicapped Candidates in the matter of regularization of such contractually engaged Doctors. The said notification is under challenge in all these writ petitions. However, since the main ground for challenge, involved in all these writ petitions, is common, for the sake of convenience, the relevant annexures and pleadings, as reflected in W.P. (S) No. 2955 of 2012, is being noticed herein.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the State Government has framed a Rule vide notification dated 12th August, 2011, Annexure5 for the purposes of regularization of such contractual Doctors serving under the State Government, which is named as Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department Medical Cadre Regularisation of Contractual Engagement Rules, 2011. As per them under Rule 4(ga) of 2011 Rules , a provision was made for relaxation of upper age limit in the matter of regularization of such doctors to the extent of number of years that they had served as such under the RespondentGovernment. The common refrain of all these petitioners is that on account of the amendment made in the said Rules in 2012, which is impugned herein, these persons have been refused regularization on the ground that they have crossed the upper age limit as prescribed thereunder. It is submitted that the petitioners have challenged the said amended Rules, inter alia, on the following grounds: (i) That a legitimate expectation has arisen in their favour on account of continuous engagement, since their original selection as such on contractual basis, of being regularized in Government service which have been denied without any apparent reason of public policy; (ii) That these petitioners had the benefit of age relaxation by virtue of Rule 4(ga) of 2011 Rules, which has vested in them and now been subsequently abrogated by the impugned amendment, which is bad in law; (iii) That the fixation of upper age limit for regularization of such contractual doctors is without any rational basis; (iv) That the State admittedly has dearth of Medical Officers/Doctors and on account of operation of the amended Rule, total 59 such Doctors including the petitioners have been put in disadvantageous position after having served for more than 10 years. Had they been regularized, the State would not have to bear much financial burden as they may not be even entitled for the benefit of pension etc. on account of the fact that they would not have spent the minimum qualifying service for availing the same. Still the respondents have chosen to deny them regularization by virtue of impugned Rules of 2012 which needs to be quashed. ;