Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Reserved On: 21.05.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 28 May, 2025 cites

Association Of Medical Super ... vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2019

While referring to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents and Others Vs. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 607, Mr. Anup 2025:HHC:16476 -8- Rattan, learned Advocate General strenuously argued that Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein. He also placed reliance upon judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.93 of 2024, wherein it came to be held that bond executed by the first respondent i.e. Doctor to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh would continue for complete period and he cannot wriggle out of the same by raising untenable pleas. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General further argued that plea raised by petitioners under an exceptional Clause 6.8.2 of the Policy dated 27.02.2019 is not at all sustainable because such exceptional Clause cannot supersede the bond conditions, as furnished in the shape of legal undertaking by the petitioners while undergoing the PG course. He further submitted that otherwise also, posting orders of the petitioners cannot be said to have been issued after expiry of one month. He submitted that final result of final examination was declared on 07.03.2025 as per Annexure P-3, as uploaded on the website of the Atal Medical Research University, but since 08.03.2025 and 09.03.2025 were gazetted holidays, posting order of the petitioners were issued by the Government vide notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-5). While referring to the supplementary affidavit filed by Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of respondents, submitted that some of petitioners, after being relieved 2025:HHC:16476 -9- from the concerned Heads of the Departments of the respective State Government Medical College had reported to the Directorate of Health on 10.03.2025 and thereafter, as per the provisions contained under Clause 6.4 of the Policy dated 27.02.2019, their posting orders were issued well within the stipulated period of one month. He further submitted that necessary intimation with regard to joining of some candidates was received from the concerned Colleges by Director, Health Services for their posting, being the cadre controlling authority, vide circular letters dated 10.03.2025, 11.03.2025, 12.03.2025, 13.03.2025, 15.03.2025 and 17.03.2025 and thereafter comprehensive proposal for postings of all such general duty officers together with the appointments of all such direct candidates (including the present petitioners) after completion of their Post Graduate courses was put up on file of the Administrative Department (Health) on 20.03.2025 by the Branch concerned. He submitted that file was marked by the Administrative Secretary (Health) to the Minister Incharge on 22.03.2025, who after having perused the same, marked the same to competent authority for necessary approval on 25.03.2025. He submitted that since between the period from 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025, Budget Session of H.P. Vidhan Sabha was going on and all the Government Departments, including the office of competent authority were preoccupied and busy with the said Budget Session, needful could only be done on 10.04.2025. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General 2025:HHC:16476 -10- further submitted that though there is no delay, if any, on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as issuance of posting order, but even if it is presumed that there is a delay, it is only of one or two days, which can be ignored by this Court, taking note of public interest at large. Lastly, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General submitted that since petitioners herein have done their MD/MS course at the expense of State of Himachal Pradesh, coupled with the fact that they have executed the bonds to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh, omission, if any, on the part of the respondents-department to issue posting order within prescribed period deserves to be ignored by this Court taking note of larger public interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 69 - L N Rao - Full Document

Abraham Patani Of Mumbai vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 2022

34. There is a specific stipulation in 2019 Policy, as also Prospectus that process of issuing posting orders would be initiated two months before the tentative completion of Post Graduation course, coupled with the fact that in the year 2023, posting orders of the bonded candidates were issued even before the declaration of result, this Court can safely conclude that the stipulation of issuing posting orders within one month is mandatory and violation thereof cannot be condoned in the absence of any such provision incorporated in the 2019 Policy or the 2025:HHC:16476 -32- Prospectus. Similarly judgment pressed into service by learned Advocate General passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Abraham Patani's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the said judgment pertains to land acquisition for public purpose and the challenge therein was made by private players.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 2 - S Kant - Full Document

Yamuna Expressway Industrial ... vs M/S Shakuntla Education And Welfare ... on 19 May, 2022

In case Yamuna Express Industrial Development Authority case (supra), though it came to be ruled that larger public interest has to give way to private interest, but same has no application in the case at hand for the reason that petitioners herein are not aggrieved of any Policy decision taken by the respondents, rather, they intend to take benefit of Policy decision, which itself provides that in the event of non-issuance of posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, they shall be relieved from the bond condition. Stipulation in Policy decision as also the Prospectus not only mandates the issuance of posting order within a month of declaration of result, but also consequences flowing from failure to do so. Failure to issue posting orders within a month, relieves the bonded candidates from the rigours of condition of the bond.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 16 - B R Gavai - Full Document
1