Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Manoj Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 2176 of 2021, 2289 of 2021, 2473 of 2021, 2712 of 2021, 2724 of 2021
Decided On : 19-07-2021
The Court held that the condition of mandatory service of the State for 4/5 years as provided in Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of the 2019 Policy is unreasonable and directed the respondent-State to amend the same by reducing the mandatory period of service from four/five to two years by making appropriate amendment(s) in Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of the 2019 Policy, strictly in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Assn. of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants & Residents v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 607.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are in-service candidates, challenged the condition of mandatory service as provided under Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of the 2019 Policy, which enables GDO to seek sponsorship to pursue super-specialty course after completion of PG course, but subject to his/her having completed mandatory service in terms of bond executed by him/her at the time of admission to post graduation course.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the condition of mandatory service of four/five years provided in Clause 6.1 is highly unreasonable because a candidate seeking admission to super-specialty course after having done post graduation course is required to serve the Department mandatory for a period of four years in case he was sponsored to pursue PG within State whereas, a candidate who is sponsored for PG outside the State is under obligation to serve state for at least five years and in default to pay Rs.40.00 Lakh.
Issues: Whether the condition of mandatory service of four/five years as provided in Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of the 2019 Policy is reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the period of mandatory service and amount of bond prescribed under the policy have to be reasonable and definitely same cannot be unreasonable/arbitrary. The Court further held that the condition of mandatory service of four/five years provided in Clause 6.1 is highly unreasonable because a candidate seeking admission to super-specialty course after having done post graduation course is required to serve the Department mandatory for a period of four years in case he was sponsored to pursue PG within State whereas, a candidate who is sponsored for PG outside the State is under obligation to serve state for at least five years and in default to pay Rs.40.00 Lakh.
Final Decision: The Court held that the condition of mandatory service of the State for 4/5 years as provided in Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of the 2019 Policy is unreasonable and directed the respondent-State to amend the same by reducing the mandatory period of service from four/five to two years by making appropriate amendment(s) in Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of the 2019 Policy, strictly in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Assn. of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants & Residents v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 607.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J. - Since in all the above captioned petitions questions of facts and law are common, same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Precisely, the challenge in the instant petition has been laid to condition of mandatory period of service as provided under Clauses 6.1 and 11.1.2 of "the Post-Graduation/Super Specialty Policy for Regulating Admission to various Post Graduation and Super Specialty Courses in Medical Education Applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh" (for short, 'Policy'), formulated by the respondent-State, whereby it has been provided that the General Duty Officers (for short, 'GDOs'), seeking sponsorship, besides being in regular service of the State should have completed mandatory period of service of 4/5 years in the State after post-graduation (for short, 'PG'), if the candidate had pursued PG as a sponsored candidate.
3. For having bird's eye view of the matter, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case are that at present there are seven Government Medical Colleges and one private medical college in the State, which impart medical education. Two medical colleges i.e. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (for short, 'IGMC') and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College and Hospital, Tanda (for short, 'RPGMC') being well established and old medical colleges have sufficient provision and infrastructure to provide PG degrees and super-specialty courses in certain disciplines, whereas, remaining five medical colleges are at the stage of infancy and as such, do not have the requisite infrastructure and faculty to provide an opportunity to the medical graduates to improve their qualifications by doing PG and super-specialty courses. Since, in two well established government medical colleges at Shimla and Tanda PG courses as well as super-specialty courses in all disciplines of medical sciences are not available, State of Himachal Pradesh, with a view to train/impart higher education to its in-service candidates formulated/notified a policy for sponsoring GDOs for doing PG/MS degree/diploma in masters courses from the Colleges/Institutions outside the State, vide Notification dated 3.10.2017 (Annexure P-2 of CWP no. 2176 of 2021, titled Manoj Sharma vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh and others), which is reproduced as under:
"Government of Himachal Pradesh |
Department of Medical Education |
File No: HFW-B(F)4-9/2017 dated: Shimla the 03/10/2017 |
Notification |
In continuation of this Department's Notification No.: HFWB(B(14-3/2009-Loose dated 20.03.2017 the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to notify a policy for sponsoring General Duty Officers for doing PG(MD/MS) Degree/Diploma & Master Courses outside the State as per the ANNEXURE 'A'. |
The Governor, Himachal Pradesh in suppression of all previous Policies notified for sponsoring GDOs for doing Super specialty DM/MCh Courses, DNB Courses within and outside the State is pleased to notify a fresh policy in this behalf as per the ANNEXURE-'B' and ANNEXURE-'C'. |
By order, |
(Onkar C. Sharma) |
Principal Secretary (Health) to the |
Government of Himachal Pradesh |
Endst. No.: As above dated: Shimla-2, the 03/10/2017 |
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:- |
1. The Special Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh w.r.t. item No.-156, Cabinet meeting dated 18.09.2017. |
2. The Deputy Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. |
3. The Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9. |
4. Director, Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9. |
5. Director, Dental Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9. |
6. The Principal, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh |
7. The Principal, Dr. RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda, Himachal Pradesh |
8. The Principal, Dr. YSPGMC, Sirmour at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh |
9. The Principal, Pt. JLNGMC, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh |
10. The Principal, Sh. LBSGMC, Ner Chowk, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh |
11. The Prin |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
