Landmark Judgment of Supreme Court on No Discrimination Based on Government Services Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Sun, Dec 22, 2019, at ,02:27 PM Title of the Case – No Discrimination Based on Government Services Name of the case – Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar., C.A. No. 9482 of 2019 (Supreme Court) Date of Judgment – 17th Dec 2019 Judges: Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Surya Kant Subject and sections involved – Rule (iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 Issue: 1. Whether Rule (iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, is constitutionally valid? Whether Rule (iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, shall be interpreted to give wider meaning? Fact of the Case: Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai, appellant, work was not considered for grant of weightage and consequential selection and appointment as General Medical Officer in the State of Bihar, on the ground that Rule (iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 mandated that only services rendered in employment of a hospital run by the Government of Bihar could count under the head of work experience. The present appeal was filed against the order of division bench of Patna High Court wherein it was observed that Rule 2(a) of the Dentist Rules defined ‘Government’ as Government of Bihar and that thus work experience under Rule 6(iii) must be read conjointly with Rule 2(a) which would show that only work experience in hospitals of Government of Bihar ought to be considered for awarding marks under the head of work experience. The intracourt appeal was thus dismissed, giving rise to further challenge through this Special Leave Petition. Ratio of the Case: The division bench of Supreme Court observed that Rule 5 & 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 are construed to include the experience gained by a doctor in any hospital run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other nonprivate hospital (including those run by the Central Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions; or other public authorities) within the territory of Bihar. The Court, thus, directed the Government of Bihar to rework and prepare a fresh merit list by granting due weightage to the appellant and other similarly placed candidates, within two months. The Court noted that a candidate will not be estopped from challenging a selection process on the ground of having participated in it when there is allegation of “misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom.”