Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Deepak Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 January, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.5509 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.5509 of 2011
Date of Decision:- 16.01.2012
Dr.Deepak Singh ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate,
for the University.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ of Mandamus for grant of No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as NOC) to the petitioner who is working as a Medical Officer with the Respondent-State of Haryana and was eligible to compete for admission to M.D./M.S. Postgraduate Diploma. He competed under the category of HCMS and secured the first position in the merit list. Otherwise being eligible, the only objection which was raised by the Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak-respondent No.2, was that the petitioner had not obtained NOC from his employer i.e. the Government of Haryana and, therefore, was not granted admission in the Course. Petitioner approached the C.W.P.No.5509 of 2011 -2- respondents on various occasions for grant of NOC but the same was denied to him by taking a ground that the disciplinary proceedings against him have been proposed to be initiated.
No chargesheet was issued and when the petitioner was not being granted the NOC, he approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 28.3.2011, this Court while issuing notice of motion permitted the petitioner to appear in the counselling scheduled for 6.4.2011 provisionally, subject to his righs in the writ petition.
Petitioner did appear in the counseling and was admitted provisionally but formal admission could not be granted to him as he had not submitted the NOC which was required and sought by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak-respondent No.2. The case further came up for hearing on 29.6.2011 when the State Government made a statement in Court that the Government of Haryana would take a decision with regard to initiation of proceedings against the petitioner shortly and accordingly sought time. It was further stated by him that no admission will be granted to any student against the seat of M.D. Radio Diagnosis offered to the petitioner. The case remained pending in this Court and ultimately, vide a decision dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-13), the respondent-State had decided to file proposed disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by treating the absence period from 6.5.2010 to 10.8.2010 as extraordinary leave. On the basis of this decision taken by the Government, NOC was issued to the petitioner by the Director General Health Services, Haryana on 2.1.2012 (Annexure P-14).
In the light of this, counsel for the petitioner contends that the C.W.P.No.5509 of 2011 -3- provisional admission granted to the petitioner in M.D. Radio Diagnosis be regularized. Petitioner has also placed on record a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No.9717 of 2011 titled as Parmender Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-11) and a further clarification issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.1.2012 which pertains to a similar controversy as involved in the present case. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be granted the same benefit.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-University submits that in the light of the cut-off date fixed by the Medical Council of India i.e. 30.6.2011, petitioner cannot be granted admission at this stage as he does not fulfil the norms for completing the Course in which he had sought admission.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
As is apparent from the record, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner who is a meritorious student and on competition, for all intents and purposes, is found to be a person deserving admission in the Course which he had sought. But unfortunately for the petitioner, for the inaction on the part of the Government of Haryana, his admission has been delayed unnecessarily. It is not in dispute that after the petitioner applied for admission to the Court being a HCMS candidate his candidature was forwarded, the NOC was, therefore, required to be issued to the petitioner which was denied to him by the Government of Haryana merely on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for absence from duty. As is apparent from the various orders passed by this C.W.P.No.5509 of 2011 -4- Court, the Government had been dragging its feet in the matter which had led to a situation where the petitioner is stated to have lost an opportunity to complete the Course within the time as mandated. Delay on the part of the State, therefore, cannot be condoned. It is merely because of inaction on the part of the State that the petitioner is being made to suffer. Ultimately, the decision has been taken by the Government with regard to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as late as on 27.12.2011 and NOC has been issued on 2.1.2012. The petitioner approached this Court well in time and also got provisional admission in the Course of MD Radio Diagnosis. But for the NOC, the petitioner would have been pursuing his Course. For the act and conduct of respondent-State, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. However, the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India also cannot be over-looked. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was not allowed to attend the classes despite the fact he got provisional admission in the M.D. Course.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would abide by the University Ordinances and Medical Council of India's guidelines and would pursue his studies in consonance with them and the admission granted to him provisionally may be regularized and he should be allowed to continue to pursue his M.D. Course.
Counsel for the University also states that the seat against which the petitioner was provisionally admitted, is still lying vacant and the same will go waste.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the statement made by the counsel for the University, I am of the considered opinion that the provisional admission granted to the petitioner C.W.P.No.5509 of 2011 -5- deserves to be regularized as there was no fault on his part and the delay, if any, for getting NOC is solely attributable to the State of Haryana. Direction is issued accordingly. The petitioner shall, however, be governed by the University Ordinances and Medical Council of India's guidelines and will complete his Course as per the mandate thereof.
The State of Haryana cannot be, in the present case, left without being penalized for the inaction and the delay in taking its decisions. It has unnecessarily harassed the petitioner without any justification and the decision which was required to be taken immediately and did not involve any complications, has been delayed, may be intentionally, to harm the interest of the petitioner or to deprive him the benefit of the Course in which he had sought admission.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in view the conduct of the State of Haryana, costs of ` 20,000/- are imposed on the respondent-State, to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana, within a period of one month from today. In case, the costs are not deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana, the Secretary of the Authority shall move an appropriate application before this Court. On deposit of the amount with the State Legal Services Authority, recovery of the said amount be made from the officials responsible for delaying the decision in the case of the petitioner.
Petition stands allowed in the terms indicated above.
January 16, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE