DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 17-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2019)
DECEMBER 17, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law:
Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions)
Rules, 2013 – rr. 2(a), 5 and 6(iii) – Advertisement for appointment
of Medical Officers – By State Public Service Commission –
Mandating that only work experience in the hospitals of State
Government was to be considered for granting marks for ‘Work
Experience’ – Appellant’s work experience in Army Hospital was
not considered – Writ Petition challenging such clause in the
advertisement being arbitrary and contrary to rr. 5 and 6 (iii) –
Writ Petition was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Writ
appeal was also dismissed by Division Bench of High Court –
Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Rules 5 and 6 (iii) cannot be
construed by applying principle of literal interpretation – The
expression ‘Government Hospital’ cannot be construed by
importing definition of ‘Government’ in s. 2(a) – The purpose
behind formulation of the Rules was to recognize unique challenge
of hospitals in the State and incentivise doctors to work in non-
private hospitals – Any attempt to discriminate between hospitals
run by the State Government and Central Government or
Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions is bound to hit the very
ethos of Constitutional governance set up – Therefore, rr. 5 and
6(iii) are construed to include the experience gained by a doctor
in any hospital run by the State Government or its instrumentalities,
as well as any other non-private hospital run by Central
Government, Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions or
other public authorities within the territory of the State –
Constitution of India – Art. 14.
Estoppel:
Challenge to selection process – After having failed, going
through such process – Whether estopped – Held: The principle
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 273
273
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection
process after having failed in it – However, this principle is
differentiated insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate
in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and
not the illegality in it – If the challenge alleges misconstruction of
statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom,
the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has
partaken in it – Moreover, unless the candidate participates in the
selection process, may not have locus to assail the illegality or
derogation of the provisions.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Construction of statutory provision – Held: As a first step
the Courts ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct
it literally – This tool of interpretation can only be applied where
the text of the enactment is susceptible to only one meaning – Where
there is ambiguity in the meaning of the text, the Courts must also
give due regard to the consequences to remedy such deficiency –
When there are two plausible interpretations, the one which
promotes constitutional values must be preferred.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.1The principle of estoppel prevents a candidate
from challenging the selection process after having failed in it.
The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent
candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to
avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having
failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second
chance. [Para 17] [287-F; 288-B-C]
1.2 However, this principle is differentiated insofar as the
candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only
accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In
a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory
rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the
same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has
partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its
violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may
not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of
the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in
the selection process. [Para 18] [288-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
1.3 The appellant has rightly not challenged the selection
procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the
respondents’ interpretation of ‘work experience’ as part of merit
determination. Since interpre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.