Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Harbhupinder Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 30 July, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 30, 2012
Dr.Harbhupinder Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Though, the petitioner, who is a PCMS doctor currently serving at Government Medical College Patiala has been sponsored by State of Punjab for doing M.Ch. (Urology) but is faced with hurdles due to the wording of the sponsorship certificate given by the State of Punjab. Respondent-PGIMER, Chandigarh has raised this objection on the ground that the change in the wording of the sponsorship CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 2 }:
certificate, which is not on the lines given in the prospectus, would make the petitioner ineligible for being taken as a sponsored candidate. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
The petitioner would make two fold prayers for issuing a mandamus, directing respondent No.2, PGI, Rohtak, to admit the petitioner as a State Government sponsored candidate to M.Ch. (Urology) and also a mandamus to respondent-Punjab State to issue sponsorship certificate in the prescribed form.
The facts, noticed in brief, would show that the petitioner completed his M.B.B.S. From the Government Medical College, Patiala, in December 1996. He was selected and appointed to PCMS Service as Medical Officer in March 1999. He did his M.S. General Surgery from Government Medical College, Patiala, in the PCMS Quota from 2002 to 2005. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer for three years at Community Health Centre, Bhadson. In 2008, the petitioner did his Senior Residency in Urology and has continued to remain employed at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Currently, the petitioner is working as Medical Officer in Urology Department in the said Hospital.
Respondent No.2 issued prospectus for various courses, including M.Ch. (Urology). Respondent-State Government can sponsor one candidate for a specialty/super-specialty. The petitioner was desirous of doing M.Ch. (Urology) and accordingly submitted his application to the State Government, which in turn has forwarded the same to respondent No.2 alongwith the sponsorship certificate dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 3 }:
9.4.2012. All the sponsored candidates were required to appear in the selection test. The test was conducted on 14.6.2012 and the result was declared on the same day. On 15.6.2012, a practical examination was conducted and the final result was accordingly declared on the same day. The petitioner secured total 59.8 marks and was placed at Sr.No.1 amongst the sponsored/deputed candidates in the order of merit.
On 16.6.2012, the candidates were interviewed. During the course of interview, the petitioner was informed that his sponsorship certificate was not on the prescribed format and so the petitioner was asked to submit a fresh sponsorship certificate, as per the prescribed format upto 30.6.2012, failing which his candidature was to be cancelled. The petitioner then met respondent No.1 on 18.6.2012. He was informed that he had already availed M.D/M.S Course in PCMS Quota and during this period, the petitioner had got full pay from the State Government. Accordingly, the petitioner was apprised that the State Government can not pay him any expenses for doing M.Ch. (Urology) Course at P.G.I., Chandigarh. The petitioner submitted in writing a letter on the same day that he would not claim any expenses and bear all the expenses on his own and further would not claim any pay and allowances for this period. The petitioner was then asked to check up the position in regard to his application after few days. On 25.6.2012, the State Government wrote another letter to sponsor the petitioner, changing the wording of the sponsorship certificate by making mention that the payment will be the responsibility of the doctor concerned. The petitioner tried CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 4 }:
to reason out with respondent No.1 to issue a sponsorship certificate as per the prospectus but respondent No.1 declined to do so. Fearing that his candidature would be rejected, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The only issue in contest in this case is whether the petitioner can be admitted by respondent No.2 as a sponsored candidate/deputed candidate for M.Ch. (Urology) or not. If the sponsorship certificate issued by the respondent-Punjab State has been worded as per the format given in the prospectus, then there would not have been any objection by the PGI to admit the petitioner as a sponsored/deputed candidate. The conditions concerning the sponsored/deputed candidates are contained in Para 5 of the prospectus, copy of which is on record. The same are as under:-
(5) Sponsored/Deputed Candidates (for
MD/MS/DM/Mch.Ph.D MHA, etc.)
A candidate applying for admission as a
sponsored/deputy candidate is required to furnish the following certificates with his/her application from his/her employer for admission to the course.
(a) That the candidate concerned is a permanent or regular employee of the deputing/sponsoring authority and should have been working for the last least three years.
(b) That after getting the training at PGI, Chandigarh, the candidate will be suitably employed by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 5 }:
deputing/sponsoring authority to work at least for five years in the specialty in which the training is receiving by the candidate at PGI, Chandigarh.
(c) That no financial implications in the form of emoluments/stipend etc. will devolve upon PGI, Chandigarh during the entire period of his/her course.
Such payment will be responsibility of the sponsoring authority.
NB: i) Deputation/Sponsorship of candidates holding tenure appointment (like house job or junior or Senior residency, Adhoc or Contract or honorary Appointment against a leave vacancy shall not be accepted.
(ii) that the sponsorship Institute should not nominate more than one candidate for a specialty/super specialty, Sponsorship/deputation of candidates will be accepted only from the following:-
a. Central Government Department/Institutions. b. State Government Departments/Institutions.
c. Autonomous Bodies of the central or State
Government.
d. Public Sector College affiliated to universities and recognized by the Medical Council of India. In case of candidate deputed/sponsored by the Medical College affiliated to universities and recognized by the Medical Council of India, the deputation/sponsorship certificate signed only by the Principal of Medical College concerned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 6 }:
shall be accepted.
NB:P 1. Deputation/Sponsorship of candidates by private nursing homes is not accepted.
2. Deputed/sponsored candidates selected are also required to appear in the selection test.
3. Deputed/sponsored candidates selected for admission to any course of the Institute are required to make their own arrangements for stay during the period of their studies."
Accordingly, the certificate, which the sponsored/deputed candidates are required to furnish is given in the above part of the prospectus. Respondent No.2 primarily seems to be concerned with the financial implication in the form of emoluments/stipend etc. and that is why requires of the candidate to submit a certificate that no financial implication in the form of emoluments/stipend etc. will devolve upon P.G.I., Chandigarh, during the entire period of his/her course. Such payment will be the responsibility of the sponsoring authority. It is this part of the requirement of this certificate that perhaps is the cause of trouble for the petitioner. The requisite certificate, which the petitioner was required to submit is also annexed with the petition and is contained in Annexure D of the prospectus. It reads as under:-
".....Certified that no financial implication in the form of emoluments/stipend etc. will devolve upon PGI, Chandigarh during the entire period of applicant's course.
Such payment will be the responsibility of
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 7 }:
sponsoring/deputing authority."
The State Government, however, changed the wording of this certificate slightly as can be seen from the sponsorship certificate, which reads as under:-
"Certified that no financial implication in the form of emoluments/stipend etc. will be devolve upon PGI, Chandigarh during the entire period of applicant's course. Such payment will be the responsibility of the doctor concerned."
It is, thus, seen that the sponsoring State has certified that there would be no financial implication in the form of emoluments/stipend etc. which will devolve upon PGI, Chandigarh, during the entire period of applicant's course. Instead of certifying that such payment will be `the responsibility of sponsoring/deputing authority', it is stated in the certificate that `such payment will be the responsibility of doctor concerned'.
Whether the person undergoing the course claims pay and allowances from the sponsoring authority or he foregoes that pay and allowances apparently is a matter between the State Government and its employees. It can not be disputed that the petitioner is serving as a doctor and has furnished all the certificates required as per the prospectus, which includes that he will be suitably employed to work atleast for five years in the specialty in which the training is received by the candidate at P.G.I., Chandigarh. The primary concern of respondent-PGI is that no financial implication should fall on the respondent-PGI. This part has been so certified by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 8 }:
the sponsoring State. Whether the petitioner receives this payment from the State or he foregoes his pay and allowances and other payments should not primarily be the concern of the PGI. This part of certificate is only to ensure that the candidate so admitted with the PGI does not lead to any financial implication for the Institute during the period of training. Once the petitioner has given an undertaking to the sponsoring authority that he will not claim anything, it would have been appropriate for the State to give a sponsorship certificate as was the requirement of the prospectus. Both the respondents are primarily concerned about their financial liability to pay etc. to the petitioner during the period of course. Once the petitioner has voluntarily and willingly given an undertaking that he will not claim any pay and allowances or other finances from the State during this period, State should feel assured that the rules regarding sponsoring a candidate without any financial implication falling on them is taken care of. It does not well to see that the State has sponsored a candidate and then is creating some hurdles. The petitioner has extended sufficient assurance to the State that he will not make them incur any financial liability for the State for this period. Once the petitioner, who is a meritorious and stood first in the entrance test, for which he was permitted to compete on the basis of sponsorship certificate submitted by him, he can not be now prejudiced simply because the certificate is not on the prescribed format.
The petitioner who is present in person in Court, through his counsel, has submitted an undertaking before this Court, which is recorded herein that he will not claim any pay and allowances or any CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12168 OF 2012 :{ 9 }:
other payment or finances required for doing this course during the entire period of his course. This should be enough to satisfy the State to feel assured that rule, if any in this regard, for not sponsoring a PCMS candidate twice with pay and allowances is taken care of.
In view of this factual position, I am inclined to grant part of the prayer of the petitioner and would direct the respondent-State to give a proper sponsorship certificate on the line as contained in the prospectus and, if so desired, the State may separately take another undertaking from the petitioner in this regard to doubly assure itself that the petitioner would not ask for any pay and allowances during the period of course. For this purpose, let the petitioner appear before Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, on 1.8.2012 with copy of this order, who shall then, on completion of formalities, as afore-mentioned, issue the sponsorship certificate as per the format given in the prospectus. In the meantime, respondent-PGI shall permit the petitioner to attend the classes with effect from 1.8.2012, pending completion of these formalities and pending receipt of proper sponsorship certificate. Even if the certificate is not forthcoming by 1.8.2012, the petitioner may be admitted provisionally and allowed to attend classes, pending receipt of proper sponsorship certificate.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
July 30, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE