The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by 609 diploma holders who sought directions for appointment in government health services, holding that completion of the Diploma Course in Medicine and Rural Health Care and registration as Community Health Professionals do not create an enforceable right to public employment.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that while the petitioners possessed statutory recognition under the relevant legislation, such recognition could not automatically translate into a claim for appointment in government service unless the law specifically provided for it.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Bikram Pathak along with 608 others. All the petitioners had completed the Diploma Course in Medicine and Rural Health Care under the erstwhile Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004. After successfully completing the course, they were registered as Community Health Professionals under the Assam Community Health Professionals (Registration & Competency) Act, 2015.
The petitioners argued that they had undergone the course pursuant to a statutory framework and were qualified to serve in the state's rural healthcare system. They sought directions requiring the State of Assam and the Health Department to consider or appoint them in government health services.
The State opposed the plea, contending that neither the 2004 Act nor the 2015 Act guaranteed government employment merely because a candidate had completed the diploma course or obtained registration as a Community Health Professional.
Court's Observations
After examining the statutory provisions, the High Court found that the legislation primarily regulated education, registration and professional competency. It did not contain any provision creating a vested right to appointment in government service.
The bench explained that recognition of a qualification and registration under a statute are distinct from recruitment to public posts. Government appointments must be made in accordance with applicable recruitment rules and constitutional requirements governing public employment.
The Court observed,
“The statutory recognition of the qualification cannot, by itself, be construed as creating a legal right to seek appointment in government service.”
Justice Saikia further noted that the Court could not issue a writ directing the government to create posts or appoint candidates where no statutory obligation existed. Judicial review is available to enforce existing legal rights, but it cannot be used to create rights that the legislature has not provided.
The judgment also records that while the petitioners may possess the qualifications prescribed under law, eligibility alone does not confer an automatic right to appointment. Recruitment must take place through the procedure prescribed by the State whenever vacancies are available.
Decision
Finding no statutory or constitutional basis to compel the State to appoint the petitioners, the Gauhati High Court declined to grant the relief sought.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court holding that registration as Community Health Professionals and completion of the diploma course do not, by themselves, entitle the petitioners to government employment. The judgment leaves recruitment to be governed by the applicable service rules and policies of the State.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bikram Pathak and 608 Others v. State of Assam and 4 Others
Case Number: WP(C)/2581/2024
Judge: Justice Soumitra Saikia
Decision Date: 29 May 2026
