0

The scope of Judicial Review when examining the Policy of the Government is to check if it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens: Calcutta High Court

The Authorities of the State take decisions bearing upon the exigencies of service prevailing in each situation. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subrata Talukdar and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia in the matter of  Chandi Charan Roy & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors [MAT No. 407 of 2020 With IA No.C.A.N. 1 of 2020]. 

The facts of the case were associated with an appeal to dismiss the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench. It was reported that for the purpose of running Homeopathic Charitable Dispensaries in Rural West Bengal by virtue of Scheme introduced by the Department of Health and Family Welfare with the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development in 1978, the appellants were appointed as Part-Time Homeopathic Doctors, with no exit or entry age limit. Doctors were allowed beyond 65 years of age but they should be physically and mentally fit to perform the work. It was alleged that the notification of 2012 was violated whereas the appellants claimed that they were appointed before the said notification was issued. 

The previous single Judge dismissed the petition of 2017 resulting in one question that if the impugned notification of 2012 violated the rights of the writ petitioners as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was found that the West Bengal government Department of Health and Family Welfare issued a memo dated 23.05.1988, in which the process to appoint such part-time Homeopathic Doctors was laid down. No age limit was mentioned. It appeared that the writ petitioner had challenged the new age policy for the exit of part-time homoeopathic doctors employed under the Scheme of 1978, by filing such a writ petition.

Considering all the submissions and facts, The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that “ In the light of the above discussion this Court refrains itself from interfering with the findings of the Hon’ble Single Bench as this Court does not find any merit in the Present Appeal… MAT No. 407 of 2020 along with IA No.CAN 1 of 2020 stands dismissed.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat