Supreme Court Upholds Science Stream Requirement for ANM Posts in Uttarakhand: Suman Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand (25 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 25 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 178

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a state government prescribe additional educational qualifications for nursing posts beyond what the Indian Nursing Council (INC) mandates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) in Uttarakhand. The court examined whether the state could insist on a science stream qualification at the intermediate level, even though the INC regulations did not specify such a requirement. This judgment clarifies the interplay between central regulatory bodies and state recruitment policies. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, with the judgment authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The case revolves around the recruitment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) in Uttarakhand. The Government of Uttarakhand had advertised 440 vacancies for Family Health Worker (FHW) and ANM positions on 15 March 2016. These advertisements were challenged in court for not adhering to the recruitment rules, specifically regarding the educational qualifications of candidates. The core issue was whether candidates needed a science background at the intermediate level (10+2) to qualify for these posts.

The appellants, who were registered ANMs, argued that they were eligible for the posts based on their qualifications and registration with the Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives Council. They contended that the Indian Nursing Council (INC) regulations did not mandate a science background for ANM training. However, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the challenge, ruling that the state’s recruitment rules required a science stream qualification at the intermediate level.

The dispute arose from the interplay between the INC Act of 1947, which aimed to standardize nursing education, and the state’s service rules. The state rules, initially framed by the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh and later adopted by Uttarakhand, mandated a science background for ANM posts. The appellants, having completed their ANM training without a science background at the intermediate level, were deemed ineligible under these rules. The appellants sought relief, arguing that the state’s requirement was discriminatory and contrary to the INC regulations.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial challenge to the Uttarakhand government’s advertisement was filed in the Uttarakhand High Court. The petitioners argued that the advertisement did not adhere to the state’s recruitment rules, which mandated a science stream qualification at the intermediate level for ANM posts. A single judge of the High Court agreed with the petitioners and set aside the advertisement.

Aggrieved by the single judge’s decision, the present appellants filed appeals before a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court. The appellants contended that the advertisement was correctly framed because the INC regulations did not require a science background for ANM training. They argued that they were duly registered and should not be disqualified. However, the Division Bench upheld the single judge’s decision, affirming that the state’s recruitment rules required a science stream qualification at the intermediate level.

Subsequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision. They argued that the state’s insistence on a science stream qualification was discriminatory and contrary to the INC Act of 1947. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s ruling and affirming the state’s power to prescribe additional qualifications for recruitment.

Legal Framework

Several key legal provisions and statutes were central to this case:

• The United Provinces Nurses, Midwives, Assistant Midwives (Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives and Health Visitors) Registration Act, 1934 (the UP Law): This law, enacted by the erstwhile United Provinces, aimed to regulate the nursing profession. It was later amended to include a definition of Auxiliary Nurse-Midwife.
• The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (the INC Act): This central legislation established the Indian Nursing Council to set uniform standards for nursing education.
  Section 10 of the INC Act specifies that qualifications listed in Part I of the Schedule are recognized qualifications, and those in Part II are recognized higher qualifications. It also allows the council to recognize other qualifications.
  Section 11 of the INC Act states that recognized qualifications are sufficient for enrolment in any state register, but it also includes a proviso to protect those registered before the Act’s commencement.
  Section 15A of the INC Act provides for the establishment of an Indian Nurses Register.
  Section 16 of the INC Act empowers the council to make regulations for training standards, admission conditions, and examination standards.
• Uttar Pradesh Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare Health Worker and Health Supervisor (Male and Female) Service Rules, 1997 (the 1997 Rules): These rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, governed the recruitment of health workers in Uttar Pradesh. Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the 1997 Rules prescribe the qualifications for direct recruitment of Health Worker (Male) and Health Worker (Female) respectively. Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules specifies the academic qualifications for Health Worker (Male and Female). It states:

  “Rule 8. Academic qualification – (i) A candidate for Direct Recruitment to the post of Health Worker (Male) must have successfully completed prescribed training course for Basic Health Worker (Male) conducted by the Departmental Divisional Training Centres (previously known as Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centres) of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
  (ii)A candidate for Direct Recruitment to the post of Health Worker (Female) must have successfully completed prescribed training course for Basic Health Worker (Female) conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwives Council, Lucknow and is also duly registered in the Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwives Council, Lucknow.
  Provided that after enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Service (First Amendment) rules 1998, it is necessary that for selection for such training the candidate must pass the Intermediate Examination with Science subject of Secondary Education Board, U.P . or any examination equivalent thereto.”

• The Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Service (First Amendment) rules 1998: This amendment to the 1997 Rules introduced the requirement of passing the Intermediate Examination with Science subjects for selection for training. Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules was substituted by this amendment.

  “Rule 14 (1) After enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Service (First Amendment) rules 1998, the process of selection of candidates for training as prescribed under Rule 8, as amended from time to time (Uttar Pradesh Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Group ‘C’ shall be made under the provisions provided under Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998. The number of candidates selected for training would be as per number of vacancies.
  (2)Sub Rule (1) at the time of making selection under Sub Section (1) the provisions of reservation shall be followed as prescribed in Rule 6.”

• The Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000: This act led to the formation of the State of Uttarakhand. Section 87 of the Act allows for the adaptation of laws, while Section 88 allows for the construction of laws.

  Section 87 reads: “87. Power to adapt laws.—For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh or Uttaranchal of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate Government may, before the expiration of two years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority.
  Explanation.—In this section, the expression “appropriate Government” means as respects any law relating to a matter enumerated in the Union List, the Central Government, and as respects any other law in its application to a State, the State Government.”

  Section 88 reads: “88. Power to construe laws.—Notwithstanding that no provision or insufficient provision has been made under section 87 for the adaptation of a law made before the appointed day, any court, tribunal or authority, required or empowered to enforce such law may, for the purpose of facilitating its application in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh or Uttaranchal, construe the law in such manner, without affecting the substance, as may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority.”

• Uttarakhand Medical Health and Family Welfare Health Worker and Health Supervisor (Male and Female) Service Rules, 2016 (the 2016 Rules): These rules replaced the 1997 Rules and amended the eligibility criteria for ANM posts. Rule 8(2) of the 2016 Rules specifies the qualifications for Health Worker (Female):

  “Rule 8(2) – Health Worker (Female)
  (i)A candidate must pass intermediate education of Uttarakhand Board and successfully completed two year course of Basic Health Worker (Female) training (including six months delivery training) or equivalent recognised qualification by the State Government.
  (ii) But for the selection year 2010 to 2013 those applicants who has passed 10th class examination from Board of High School and successfully completed 18 months course of Basic Health Worker (Female) training (including six months delivery training) or equivalent recognized qualification by the State Government.
  (iii) The Candidate has passed Intermediate Examination (Science Stream) of the Uttarakhand Board or any other equivalent qualification; in addition to which the candidates must have successfully completed 18 months course of Basic Health Worker (Female) training (including six months delivery training) or equivalent recognized qualification prior to the selection year 2010.
  (iv) The candidate must be duly registered in the Nurses and Midwifery Council of Uttarakhand.”

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the state to frame rules governing the conditions of service of persons serving under the state.

Arguments

The appellants, who were registered ANMs, presented several arguments:

• Equal Opportunity: They argued that the requirement of a science stream at the intermediate level was discriminatory and violated the principle of equal opportunity. They contended that all candidates who had completed the ANM course, regardless of their intermediate stream, should be considered equally.
• No Rational Basis: The appellants submitted that there was no rational basis for distinguishing between candidates with an intermediate in Arts and those with an intermediate in Science, as both had undergone the same ANM training. They argued that the state should have adopted a merit-based approach rather than a stream-based one.
• Legitimate Expectation: The appellants argued that they had a legitimate expectation of being considered for employment in Uttarakhand after completing the ANM course and being registered.
• Central Enactment: They contended that the INC Act, being a central enactment, should prevail over the state’s recruitment rules. They argued that the state could not prescribe a different eligibility criteria that excluded candidates who met the INC’s standards.
• Advertisement Conditions: The appellants argued that the state was bound by the conditions specified in the advertisement, which did not mention the requirement of a science stream at the intermediate level. They relied on the judgments in Desh Bandhu Gupta v. Delhi Stock Exchange [(1979) 4 SCC 565] and N.P.N. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157] to support their argument that the state could not change the rules mid-process.
• Adoption Order: The appellants also argued that the adoption order under Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 did not expressly refer to the 1998 amendment that introduced the science stream requirement.
• Training Institutes: Some appellants argued that they had completed their ANM training in institutes within Uttarakhand, and the state should not discriminate against them.

The State of Uttarakhand, on the other hand, argued:

• Prevailing Rules: The state contended that the 1997 Rules, as amended in 1998, were in force and mandated a science stream qualification at the intermediate level for ANM posts. They argued that the state was not bound by the omission in the advertisement.
• State Competence: The state argued that it had the competence to prescribe eligibility conditions for civil posts and that the INC Act only set standards for nursing education and did not restrict the state’s power to set additional qualifications for employment.
• No Automatic Appointment: The state submitted that merely having an ANM qualification and registration did not guarantee automatic appointment. They emphasized that the selection committee had to consider candidates based on batch-wise seniority and eligibility as per the rules.
• 2016 Rules: The state clarified that the 2016 Rules, which relaxed the science stream requirement for a brief period, did not apply to the appellants as they did not fall within the specified period.
• No Discrimination: The state argued that the eligibility criteria were reasonable and not discriminatory, as they were based on the state’s need for qualified healthcare professionals.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the State of Uttarakhand could mandate a science stream qualification at the intermediate level for ANM posts, despite the Indian Nursing Council (INC) not requiring it.
2. Whether the state was bound by the criteria specified in the advertisement issued by it in March 2016, even though Clause 7 of that notification clearly specified that the recruitments for ANMs would be in accordance with the statutory rules.
3. Whether the statutory rules framed by the erstwhile State of UP as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, were contrary to the provisions of the INC Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision. The Court held that the state was within its rights to prescribe a science stream qualification at the intermediate level for ANM posts, even if the Indian Nursing Council (INC) did not require it. The Court also ruled that the state was not bound by the omission in the advertisement, as the advertisement itself stated that recruitment would be as per the prevailing rules.

The Court emphasized that the INC Act’s objective is to set up a central council for uniform nursing education standards and to recognize nursing qualifications. However, this does not undermine the state’s power under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame appropriate rules for conditions of service, including minimum educational qualifications. The Court found no conflict between the INC Act and the state’s recruitment rules.

The Court also rejected the appellants’ argument that they had a right to be appointed based on batch-wise seniority, reiterating that the selection process included a scrutiny by a selection committee and that eligibility was a prerequisite. The Court emphasized that the eligibility of a candidate is to be adjudged as on the last date of receipt of applications for such post or service.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished Desh Bandhu Gupta v. Delhi Stock Exchange [(1979) 4 SCC 565] and N.P.N. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157], stating that the advertisement itself mentioned that the recruitment would be as per rules.
• The Court cited Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [(1997) 4 SCC 18] to emphasize that eligibility for a public post is determined as of the last date for application.
• The Court cited Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. UPSC [(2006) 8 SCC 42] to support the principle that the statutory authority is entitled to frame rules for terms of service and qualifications.
• The Court considered Sections 10, 11, 15A, and 16 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 to understand the INC’s role but emphasized that it does not restrict the state’s power to set additional employment criteria.
• The Court referred to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to emphasize the state’s power to frame rules for the conditions of service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the state has the authority to prescribe additional qualifications for employment, even if a central body like the Indian Nursing Council (INC) does not mandate them for training. The Court emphasized that the INC’s role is to set standards for education, not for employment, and that the state’s power under Article 309 of the Constitution allows it to set its own eligibility criteria for public posts. The Court also gave importance to the fact that the advertisement itself mentioned that the recruitment would be as per the prevailing rules, which included the science stream requirement. The Court also emphasized that the eligibility of a candidate is to be adjudged as on the last date of receipt of applications for such post or service.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily based on legal principles, emphasizing the state’s power to frame rules for service conditions under Article 309 of the Constitution and the distinction between educational standards set by the INC and employment criteria set by the state. The factual matrix of the case, including the specific rules and advertisements, was examined through the lens of these legal principles. The law weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision, with a ratio of approximately 70:30 in favor of legal principles over the specific facts of the case.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suman Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand clarifies the interplay between central regulatory bodies and state recruitment policies. The Court affirmed that while central bodies like the Indian Nursing Council (INC) set standards for education, states have the power to prescribe additional qualifications for employment. This decision underscores the state’s autonomy in setting service conditions and ensures that states can tailor recruitment standards to meet specific needs.

The judgment also highlights the importance of adhering to existing statutory rules and the principle that an advertisement cannot override the rules. The Court emphasized that eligibility for a public post is determined as of the last date for application, and that the authority is bound by the representation made in the advertisement. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of the state’s authority in prescribing eligibility criteria for public employment and the interpretation of service rules.