Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Rajesh Singhal vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 11 April, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 &
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 11, 2014
Dr. Rajesh Singhal
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. I. D. Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 Prayer in this application is for permitting the petitioner to participate in the counselling for Post Graduate Course, which is scheduled for 12.04.2014.
Request has also been made for permission to place on record Annexures P-10 to P-12 and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof.
As regards the prayers of the petitioner for exemption for placing on record Annexures P-10 to P-12 and for exempting the filing of certified copies are concerned, the same are allowed.
Khurmi Rakesh 2014.04.22 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 2 }:
Annexures P-10 to P-12 are taken on record and exemption is granted from filing certified copies thereof.
Since the main case is being taken up for disposal, further prayed made in the application is rendered infructuous.
The said prayer is disposed of as infructuous.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 The petitioner has approached this Court, impugning the order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure P-9) vide which the petitioner has been debarred for five years for acquiring higher education and further that no `No Objection Certificate' (for short, "NOC") will be issued to him during this period.
It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in the year 2009, was issued a NOC on 19.03.2009 for applying for admission to M.S. General Surgery Course. He cleared the requisite test and joined the Course on 01.06.2009 at P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak. Petitioner could not pull on with the Dean of the Faculty of Surgery and, therefore, on 19.10.2009 submitted his resignation to the respondents, highlighting therein his grievance that he is unable to continue with the Course. The petitioner submitted a reminder on 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) to the Director, PGIMS, Rohtak, when nothing was heard on his resignation dated 19.10.2009(Annexure P-3). The petitioner thereafter rejoined his service on 15.12.2009. The decision on the case of the petitioner, who had in between left the course, was taken by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department-respondent No.1 vide order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure P-9), wherein the period for which Khurmi Rakesh 2014.04.22 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 3 }:
the petitioner was in Course i.e. 01.06.2009 to 15.12.2009, was treated as extra ordinary leave without pay and this period was not to be treated for any other purpose. The amount, which was received by the petitioner from the Government, was to be recovered from him and for the next five years, he was debarred from acquiring higher education and it was ordered that NOC may also not be issued to him.
This order has now been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition on the ground that the five years period would commence from the date of issuance of NOC i.e. 19.03.2009 and would end on 18.03.2014. If these five years are over in March 2014, the petitioner would again be eligible for taking admission in Post Graduation Course under the HCMS Category. Petitioner did participate in the selection process and has also cleared the examination. Now he has not been issued the NOC and rather during the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure P-12) has been passed, denying him NOC on the ground that five years period of his debarment has not yet expired. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable as the debarment period has come to an end on 18.03.2014, which is prior to the order of rejection of his claim for issuance of NOC. By referring to Clause (2) of heading `C' of Annexure `C' in prospectus (Annexure P-1), the counsel contends that the date of issuance of NOC would be the relevant date, which would relate back to the debarment period of five years. Reference has also been made to heading `D', Clause (i) in support of this contention.
Accordingly, prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner for setting- aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure P-9) as also the letter Khurmi Rakesh 2014.04.22 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 4 }:
dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.2.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the period of five years would start running from 21.06.2012, when the order, debarring the petitioner for five years was passed by respondent No.1. He submits that the stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the language used in the prospectus. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The case revolves around the interpretation of Clause C (ii) and (D) of Annexure `C' appended with the prospectus issued by the Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, for entrance examination 2009, MD/MS/PG Diploma, MDS and M.Ch. (Annexure P-1).
Thus, the same is reproduced hereunder:-
""C. Sponsorship of candidates for higher studies against Reserved Seats:
Presently, certain number of seats are reserved in the PGIMS, Rohtak for P.G.Diploma/P.G.Degree Courses for the in-service employees of HCMS. The cases of in-service candidates for higher studies against reserved seats will be regulated as follows:-
1. xxx xxxx xxx
2. After the NOC is issued to the applicant, his admission will be governed by the admission rules of the Institution/ University. However, the candidate will have to appear for the Khurmi Rakesh 2014.04.22 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 5 }:
minimum of 50% marks in order to be eligible for admission to the course.
Before his relieving from the department, he/she will have to execute a service bond for a minimum period of seven years or pay an amount of Rs.10 lakh to the Haryana Government in lieu thereof in the case of PG Degree/Super Specialty courses and for a minimum period of five years or payment of an amount of Rs.5 lakh in lieu thereof in the case of PG Diploma. D. Consequences of failure to complete the Course of Study within the prescribed period or leaving the same mid- way:
i) Consequences of failure to complete the course of study within the prescribed period or leaving the same midway they will refund the amount received on account of duty for study and the period from the date of relieving to the date of joining back will be treated as period of EOL without pay unless has been incapacitated on medical ground and medical institution certified the facts of incapacitation and recommend exemption of the above. This period of EOL shall not count as a service for any purpose and employee will be debarred for a period of five years for `NOC' for higher study.
ii) if they get any stipend/remuneration from any institute will be deposited in Haryana Govt. Treasury."
A perusal of the above would show that for a in-service candidate, the first requirement is the issuance of a NOC by the competent Khurmi Rakesh 2014.04.22 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 6 }:
authority. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued the said NOC on 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-2). It is thereafter that the petitioner was relieved from the Government service and he joined the M.S. General Surgery Course on 01.06.2009. He submitted his resignation from the said course on 19.10.2009 and as per the order dated 21.06.2012, he rejoined his duty on 15.12.2009. He was, thus, undertraining from 01.06.2009 to 15.12.2009. As per Heading `D' of Annexure 'C' reproduced above, the period spent in the training will be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay, which shall not be counted as service for any purpose and the employee will be debarred for a period of five years for issuance of NOC for higher study. Even the stiffened/remuneration received from the Institute will have to be deposited in the Haryana Government Treasury. This clearly indicates that the debarment would start from the date the employee rejoins the service after spending the time for study of course. This clause obviously applies where a candidate fails to complete the Course of study within the prescribed period or, as in the case of the petitioner, leaves the same midway. The period from the date of relieving from the Government service to join the Course till the date of joining back is to be treated as period of extra ordinary leave without pay. Except for the exceptions carved out therein i.e. incapacitation on medical grounds or the medical institution itself certifying the fact of incapacitation with a recommendation for exemption.
In view of the above, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the order of debarment would come into effect from the initial date of issuance of NOC issued to the petitioner cannot be accepted as it would be against the plain language of Clause D(i).
Khurmi Rakesh 2014.04.22 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.M. NO.4396 OF 2014 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13989 OF 2013 :{ 7 }:
The contention of counsel for the State that the period of debarment would start operating from the date of passing of the said order also cannot be accepted as the language of Heading D(i) virtually gives the period as also the date from which it would start operating. Even otherwise, it would be unjust to a candidate if the contention of counsel for the State is accepted that the order of debarment would start from the date of its issuance, especially when the competent authority sits over the matter for a long period of time without taking a decision thereon. In the present case as well, the petitioner admittedly reported back for duty on 15.12.2009 but the order of debarment has been passed on 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-9).
In view of the position as has been explained above, the order of debarment of the petitioner would start to operate from 15.12.2009 and would continue till 14.12.2014 and, therefore, NOC cannot be issued to the petitioner prior to the said date.
In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
April 11, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
khurmi JUDGE
Khurmi Rakesh
2014.04.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document