SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BINDAL & RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Dr. Narender Soni - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No. 8649 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-05-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Mr. Mukesh Rao, and Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Surender Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. M.S. Loniga, Advocate.

The State cannot issue a notification identifying remote and/or difficult areas for the purpose of granting incentives to in-service candidates for admission to Post Graduate Medical/ Dental Courses without following the procedure laid down in the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India.

Headnote:

MEDICAL ADMISSION - POST GRADUATE COURSES - PROCEDURE - NOTIFICATION OF REMOTE AND DIFFICULT AREAS - CRITERIA - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ADMISSIONS - CANCELLATION - COSTS - COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE LAPSES AND TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Haryana issued a notification dated 5.5.2017, notifying 68 Community Health Centres and 268 Primary Health Centres as remote and/or difficult areas/ institutions for the purpose of granting incentives to in-service candidates for admission to Post Graduate Medical/ Dental Courses. The notification was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it was issued in a hurry without proper examination of complete facts and record, and that it was based on material which had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the notification dated 5.5.2017 was illegal and arbitrary, and that it violated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan's case (supra) and the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. The Court further held that the admissions made on the basis of the notification were void ab initio.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification dated 5.5.2017 was issued in accordance with the law? 2. Whether the admissions made on the basis of the notification were valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notification dated 5.5.2017 was illegal and arbitrary, and that it violated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan's case (supra) and the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. The Court reasoned that the notification was issued in a hurry without proper examination of complete facts and record, and that it was based on material which had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 2. The Court held that the admissions made on the basis of the notification were void ab initio.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the notification dated 5.5.2017 and directed the State/the Nodal Agency/ University to carry out fresh counselling on 17.5.2017, after due intimation to all concerned. The Court also directed the State to pay costs of Rs. 1 Lakh each to the petitioners and to the candidates who may loose admission or may get less preferred branch on account of the notification dated 5.5.2017 having been set aside. The Court further directed the Chief Secretary to set up a Committee to examine the reasons for serious lapses committed in notifying the procedure for admission and take remedial measures for future.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. This order will dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 8649, 9192 and 9356 of 2017, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

CWP No. 8649 of 2017

2. The petitioner herein after getting MBBS Degree, was appointed as Medical Officer in ESI Health Care and is presently working as Medical Officer, ESI Dispensary at Village Mayyar, District Hisar.

3. Being a candidate for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the Session 2017-18, the petitioner has challenged Clause 2 of the order dated 21.4.2017 issued by the Medical Education & Research Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide which maximum incentive of 20% of marks obtained in National Eligibility and Entrance Test, PG 2017 (for short, 'NEET'), is to be given to in-service candidates for admission in PG Medical Courses.

4. Clause 7 of Chapter XIII of the Prospectus for admission issued by Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak (for short, 'the University') has also been challenged whereby additional weightage has been given to the candidates passing MBBS/ BDS from recognised Medical/ Dental colleges in the State of Haryana.

5. As during the pendency of the present writ petition learned Single Bench of this Court in CWP No.8497 of 2017 titled as Dr. Ankit and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 5.5.2017, set aside the aforesaid two clauses, order dated 21.4.2017 was superseded vide order dated 5.5.2017. Simultaneously, notification dated 5.5.2017 was issued by the Department of Health, Government of Haryana, notifying the remote and/or difficult areas/ institutions in the State of Haryana, for the purpose of admission to various Post Graduate Medical/ Dental courses in the State. Challenge is sought to be made to the aforesaid notification.

CWP No. 9192 of 2017

6. The petitioner herein was appointed as Medical Officer and is presently working in Community Health Centre, Pataudi, District Gurgaon. He is candidate for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the Session 2017-18. He has challenged Clause 2 of order dated 21.4.2017 issued by the Medical Education & Research Department, Haryana, Chandigarh.

7. Clause 3 of the order dated 21.4.2017 and communication dated 21.4.2017 have also been challenged on the ground that the benefit of reservation could not be granted for service rendered in rural areas as it has to be in remote/ difficult areas as per Regulation 9 of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (for short, 'the 2000 Regulations').

8. Challenge has also been made to Clause 7 of Chapter XIII of the Prospectus issued by the University.

9. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to give weightage as per Clause 9 (IV) of the 2000 Regulations.

CWP No. 9356/2017

10. The petitioners in the present writ petition passed their MBBS Degree course from Pandit B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak in the year 2017 and are candidates for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the Session 2017-18.

11. The writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.4.2017 and further directing the respondents to issue orders/notification specifying conditions strictly as per Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations.

Facts

12. The procedure for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses for the Session 2017-18 was notified by the State on 16.3.2017. The tentative seats matrix for admission to different courses was attached with the notification. As the Annexure suggested reservation of seats for admission to MD/MS/ PG Diploma Courses for in-service candidates, the same was impugned by various candidates by filing CWP No. 7594 of 2017 Jashanpreet vs State of Haryana and others. The writ petition was disposed of on 18.4.2017 in terms of the stand taken by learned counsel for the State that the mistake in the notification has been realized and the counsellin













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top