2025:JHHC:17846-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.21 of 2022 1. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. 2. Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. 3. Dean, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. ----- Appellants Versus 1. Lily Kujur 2(i). Egnesh Tirkey 2(ii). Bipin Tirkey 2(iii). Deepak Sanjay Tirkey 3. Asren Bhengra 4. Suchita Lakra 5. Bishwasi Tiru 6. Shanta Mandal 7. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 8. The P.F. Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Jharkhand, Ranchi. ----- Respondents ------ PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellants : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Adv. ------- JUDGMENT Dated: 1st July 2025 R.Mukhopadhyay,J. Heard Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3710 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the respondents herein has been allowed and it has been held that the writ petitioners are also entitled for regularization w.e.f. 21.10.2014. 2 3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that an advertisement was issued by the Rajendra Institute of Medical College Hospital (RMCH) on 08.02.2002 and pursuant to the writ petitioners (respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein) being selected they were appointed on a contractual basis on 08.09.2003. The Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) which was earlier known as RMCH floated an advertisement on 11.10.2014 for appointment of Staff Nurse Grade-A on a regular basis in terms of the provisions as contained in RIMS Nursing Staff Appointment, Promotion and Service Condition Rules, 2014. The writ petitioners had applied pursuant to the said advertisement but on scrutiny all the writ petitioners were found to be overaged and unfit for appointment. Since the writ petitioners were not appointed as Nurse Grade-A, they had preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 3593 of 2015 with a prayer for regularization of their services. The said writ application was disposed of on 06.09.2017 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization after framing a scheme for regularization of contractual / casual workers. Pursuant to the said order dated 06.09.2017 a meeting was held of the governing body of RIMS on 08.02.2018 in which a scheme was formulated for one time relaxation in age for the nurses working on contractual basis in RIMS whose services could not be regularized earlier on account of being overaged. A committee was constituted vide memo No. 1217 dated 07.03.2018 and in the meeting held on 12.03.2018 the committee decided to grant further age relaxation to nurses and laboratory technicians appointed on contractual basis over and above the limit prescribed in RIMS Nursing Appointment and Promotion Rules, 2014. On the basis of the recommendations of the regularization committee based on the decision of the Governing Body of RIMS dated 08.02.2018 an office order as contained in memo No. 2163 dated 04.04.2018 was issued 3 whereby the services of the original writ petitioners were regularized with effect from the date of the decision of the Governing Body i.e. 08.02.2018. It has been stated that all the writ petitioners gave their joining on the post of Nurse Grade A on 04.04.2018 and the joinings were accepted treating their services as regularized with effect from 08.02.2018 vide memo No. 2451 dated 17.04.2018. 4. Being aggrieved by the date of regularization i.e. 08.02.2018 the writ petitioners had preferred W.P.(S) No. 3710/2018 with a prayer to regularize their services with effect from 21.10.2014 along with all consequential benefits at par with those nurses who had been appointed in conformity with the provisions contained in the RIMS Nursing, Appointment and Promotion Rules, 2014. The said writ application was disposed of on 02.11.2021 by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioners are entitled for regularization with effect from 21.10.2014 and the office order dated 17.04.2018 was modified to the extent that the services of the petitioners be treated to be regularized with effect from 21.10.2014. 5. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants RIMS has extensively referred to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Nursing Cadre, Appointment, Promotion and Service Condition Rules, 2014 which has come into effect from 11.10.2014 and Rule 4.3 deals with the relaxation in age for each year in service from the date of the first appointment. He has also referred to the advertisement dated 11.10.2014 which reflects the age relaxation as enumerated in the Rules of 2014. Reference has also been made to the proceedings of the Governing Body meeting which had directed to give a one-time relaxation for such candidates to be regularized. It has been submitted that similarly situated persons against whom the writ petitioners have claimed parity 4 were regular appointees while the writ petitioners were appointed on contractual basis. Both are in a distinct class and therefore the learned Single Judge was in error in coming to a conclusion that a discrimination has been committed by regularizing the writ petitioners with effect from 08.02.2018. 6. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners has submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly come to a conclusion that the writ petitioners were appointed by following the due process of law and therefore, they were correctly treated to be at par with the regular appointees. 7. The narration of the factual aspects reveal that the focal point of dispute is the date of regularization. The writ petitioners were regularized with effect from 08.02.2018 which is the date when the Governing Body had taken a decision for regularization by relaxing the age of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners have claimed regularization from the date Staff Nurses Grade-A were appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.10.2014. It is the consistent case of the appellant-RIMS that the writ petitioners cannot be treated to be at par with the regular appointees who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.10.2014. The appointment of the writ petitioners though on contractual basis was done in terms of the issuance of an advertisement and upon following the due process of law and treating their date of regularization with effect from 08.02.2018 seems to be discriminatory and in fact no rationale for such date exists except the fact that the Governing Body had taken a decision on that date to relax the age and regularize the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge was correct in coming to a conclusion that creating a class within a class reflects the discrimination resorted to by the appellant RIMS. 5 8. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made herein above, do not find any merit in this appeal which consequently stands dismissed. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Shamim/-