Contextual reading of recruitment rules broadened qualifying hospital experience and allowed challenge to statutory interpretation after participation.

A recruitment challenge to the construction of statutory selection criteria remained maintainable despite the candidate's participation in the process, because participation did not amount to acceptance of an alleged misconstruction of the rules. The term "any Government hospital" in the Bihar Health Service Rules, 2013 was construed contextually and purposively, so Rule 2(a)'s definition of Government did not narrow the adjectival use of that phrase. Experience in non-private public hospitals run by the State, the Central Government, municipalities, Panchayati Raj institutions, or other public authorities in Bihar was therefore treated as qualifying work experience, consistent with equal opportunity and public health objectives.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a candidate who participated in the recruitment process could challenge the interpretation of the selection criteria after failing to secure selection; (ii) Whether work experience in a hospital run by the Central Government, Municipalities, Panchayati Raj Institutions, or other non-private public authorities within Bihar could be treated as "work experience" for the purposes of Rule 5 and Rule 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013.

Issue (i): Whether a candidate who participated in the recruitment process could challenge the interpretation of the selection criteria after failing to secure selection.

Analysis: The principle barring a candidate from assailing the selection process after participation was recognised, but it was held to be inapplicable where the challenge was to the legality and construction of the statutory rules themselves. Participation in the process amounted to acceptance of the procedure, not of an alleged misconstruction that produced discriminatory consequences. A challenge to statutory interpretation affecting public employment could therefore be examined on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge was maintainable and not barred by participation in the selection process.

Issue (ii): Whether work experience in a hospital run by the Central Government, Municipalities, Panchayati Raj Institutions, or other non-private public authorities within Bihar could be treated as "work experience" for the purposes of Rule 5 and Rule 6(iii) of the Bihar Health Service (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The phrase "any Government hospital" was construed in its contextual and purposive sense. Rule 2(a), defining "Government" as Government of Bihar, was held not to control the adjectival use of "Government" in "Government hospital". A narrow reading restricted to Bihar Government hospitals would create ambiguity, restrict the eligible pool without textual compulsion, and frustrate the objective of recognising experience in non-private public hospitals. The constitutional setting under Articles 16, 47, 243G and 243W supported a broader interpretation consistent with public health and equal opportunity in public employment.

Conclusion: Rule 5 and Rule 6(iii) were held to include experience gained in any non-private hospital run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, and also in hospitals run by the Central Government, Municipalities, Panchayati Raj Institutions, or other public authorities within Bihar.

Final Conclusion: The recruitment criterion was interpreted expansively, the restrictive exclusion of such experience was disapproved, and the authorities were required to reconsider the merit list by granting due weight to the appellant and similarly placed candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory expression in a recruitment rule must be construed contextually and purposively, and a definitional clause using a word in noun form does not necessarily confine its adjectival use where such confinement would defeat the rule's object and constitutional equality in public employment.

---