Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neelam Sharma & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 15 November, 2016
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPs No. 3326 & 3820 of 2015 Reserved on: 09.11.2016 Decided on: 15.11.2016 .
_______________________________________________________ CWP No. 3326 of 2013:
Neelam Sharma & another.
.....Petitioners.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
......Respondents.
of CWP No. 3820 of 2015:
Meena Sharma & others.
.....Petitioners.
Versus rt State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
......Respondents.
________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
CWP No. 3326 of 2015:
For the petitioners: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Virender K. Vrma, Adl. AG, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
CWP No. 3820 of 2015:
For the petitioners: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 2
For the respondents: Mr. Virender K. Vrma, Adl. AG, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
.
Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
of Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the both these writ petitions, they are taken up together for rt disposal.
2. The petitioners have maintained these petitions seeking appropriate writ or directions to the respondents, especially to respondent No. 2, Para Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as 'PMC') to give registration numbers to the petitioners in PMC as Medical Lab Technologists. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to respondent No. 1/State for registration of their names with the PMC.
3. Succinctly, as per the petitioners, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that they had done B.Sc. in Medical Lab.
Technology from respondent No. 4/University. It is further contended by the petitioners that in the notice published by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 3 respondent No. 4 as well as in the prospectus it was clearly mentioned that students of any stream are eligible for obtaining degree in B.Sc. Para Medical. Classes were conducted by .
respondent No. 3 on behalf of respondent No. 4/University and the petitioners successfully qualified all the examinations. After completion of the degree, the petitioners approached respondent of No. 2 for registration of their names with PMC as Medical Lab.
Technologists, however, respondent No. 2 refused to enter their rt names solely on the basis that the petitioners have not done higher secondary in science stream, hence rendered them ineligible for the registration.
4. Reply to the petitions were filed by the respondents and respondent No. 2 (PMC) in its reply has averred that Para Medical Council is a statutory organization of Himachal Pradesh Government under Section 3 of the H.P. Para Medical Council Act, 2003. As per respondent No. 2, the primary functions of the Council is to register Himachal Pradesh para-medicals and the staff working in the government hospitals, private institutions and private hospitals within the state of Himachal Pradesh. It also registers various para medical officials as per qualifications mentioned in the Schedule of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 4 H.P. Para Medical Council Act. On merits, respondent No. 2, has submitted that PMC vide its meeting dated 23.02.2008 decided that para-medicals are required to register their qualification.
.
5. Though the petitioners have specifically averred that the similarly situated persons before 2008 were registered with the Para Medical Council, but in reply thereto, respondent No. 2 has of stated that in its meeting held on 23.02.2008 it was decided as under:
rt "Registration of Para-Medicals w.e.f. 2008 It has been decided that the registration of Para-
Medicals (laboratory Technician and Radiographer) shall be done if they fulfill the qualification 10+2 (medical) with 2 year Diploma from recognized institution. Candidates possessing BSc Medical laboratory Technology qualification should have 3 years Degree course from recognized institution after 10+2 qualification."
6. From this it is clear that it is three years' degree course after 10+2 from a recognized institution. It is nowhere mentioned that 10+2 qualification is required to be in science stream only.
Now whether it is an omission or the respondents wanted to have only 10+2/Higher Secondary qualification in any stream is not clarified, though from the stand of the respondents it seems that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 5 they wanted 10+2/Higher Secondary in medical stream.
7. At the same point of time, if prospectus of respondent No. 4 /University is seen, under the head salient features, it .
specifically states as under:
"Salient Features UGC Nomenclature All courses offered by PTU are as per the nomenclature and guidelines of University Grants of Commission that makes these courses universally acceptable.
DEC Approval rt All courses offered by PTU under this program had been approved by DEC, Distance Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi, vide its letter no. F.1- 1/2006(JS/SU) dated 6th January, 2006 with retrospective effect."
8. Likewise, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has issued a letter (Annexure R-4/2) which reads as under:
"With reference to your letter dated 20th August, 2009, regarding the above subject, I am conveying herewith the decisions of the Distance Education Council taken at its meeting held on 10th March, 2010:
i) Territorial jurisdiction for Distance Education Programmes: (Item 35.01). the Council resolved that Distance Education and On-line Education cannot have the territorial jurisdiction and in the case of Central universities and State Universities, the territorial jurisdiction shall be as per the Act, Statutes and Distance Education regulations of the respective Universities for all their programmes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 6
ii) Recognition of PTU Distance Education Programmes: The Distance Education Council noted the acceptance of the compliance report submitted by the Punjab Technical University in response to the UGC-AICTE-DEC joint committee's .
recommendations. The Council ratified the decision (item 35.06.vi) taken by the Chairman in accepting the compliance report and 2012 for all programmes through Distance Mode, as recommended by the joint committee. The University may offer the programmes following these provisions.
All courses offered by PTU are as per the of nomenclature and guidelines of University Grants Commission that makes these courses universally acceptable.
rt DEC Approval All courses offered by PTU under this program had been approved by DEC, Distance Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi, vide its letter no. F.1- 1/2006(JS/SU) dated 6th January, 2006 with retrospective effect."
9. Manifestly, the petitioners have done B.Sc. degree after fully understanding the fact that they will be registered with respondent No. 2. In these circumstances, this Court is not going into the stand taken by respondent No. 2 that the petitioners cannot be registered, as Government of Himachal Pradesh has not decided to part this education in the private colleges in Himachal Pradesh, but the above discussion shows that the petitioners are either eligible for registration or they are misguided/misled by respondents ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 7 No. 3 and 4 and their precious time of three years is wasted. In these circumstances, this Court finds that as it is for respondent No. 2 (PMC) to take a decision in this matter with regard to registration .
of the petitioners and respondent No. 1 has to issue appropriate guidelines for this purpose, which has not been issued, therefore, respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners of in the light of the observations made hereinabove as well as in the writ petition and issue appropriate directions and respondent No. 2 rt (PMC) is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in right perspective in view of the observations made hereinabove, as well as seek guidance for respondent No. 1.
10. Respondent No. 3 (Institution) is functioning within the State of Himachal Pradesh under respondent No. 4 (Punjab Technical University) and it was incumbent upon respondents No. 1 and 2 to have monitored this institution and if the institution is awarding degree which is not recognized then respondents No. 1 and 2 must have taken proper care. At this stage, the only direction, which this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be passed is that respondents No. 1 and 2 will treat these writ petitions as representations of the respective petitioners ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 8 and after considering the available material and the observations made hereinabove, take appropriate decision in the matter within .
a period of two months from today. Needless to say, if the degrees of the petitioners, after spending three precious years of their lives, are not of any value, then respondents No. 1 and 2 of should take appropriate action against respondents No. 3 and 4.
It is also needless to say that the petitioners have right to get rt compensation under the ordinary law, if their degrees are not recognized, after leading cogent and reliable evidence in appropriate civil proceedings.
11. The petitioners (in CWP No. 3326 of 2015) have also filed an application, bearing CMP No. 7982 of 2015, before this Court for allowing them to participate in the test/interview which was published/notified for the post of Medical Lab. Technologists.
As the petitions have already been ordered to be treated as representations of the petitioners, this prayer of the petitioners be also considered by respondents No. 1 and 2.
12. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP 9 parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
Copy dasti.
.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 15th November, 2016 of (virender) rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:13 :::HCHP