Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G. S. Sandhawalia,Vikas Suri, JJ.
Sangeeta Aggarwal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
LPA No. 1347 of 2017
Decided On : 02-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Senior D.A.G. Punjab, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of being vigilant in seeking judicial redress, the impact of waiver and acquiescence on the relief sought by the petitioners, and the fatal nature of delay and laches in challenging policy decisions affecting a class of persons.

Headnote:
Acquiescence, Delay, and Laches in Challenging Policy Decision - Medical Officers (Dental) - Punjab Dental Service erstwhile (Class-II) Rules, 1968, Punjab Dental Education Service (Class-II) Rules, 1977 - The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of acquiescence, delay, and laches in challenging the policy decision of the State affecting the entire class of Medical Officers (Dental) and the failure to seek judicial review in a timely manner. The court also highlighted the importance of being vigilant in seeking judicial redress and the impact of waiver and acquiescence on the relief sought by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioners, Medical Officers (Dental), sought relief against the State's policy decision affecting their adjustment as teaching faculty in Medical/Dental Colleges. The court found that the petitioners failed to challenge the policy decision in a timely manner and had acquiesced to the decision, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' delay in challenging the policy decision and their failure to seek judicial redress in a timely manner amounted to acquiescence and laches, which were fatal to their case. The court also emphasized the importance of being vigilant in seeking judicial redress and the impact of waiver and acquiescence on the relief sought by the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' delay in challenging the policy decision affecting their adjustment as teaching faculty in Medical/Dental Colleges, their failure to seek judicial redress in a timely manner, and the impact of acquiescence and laches on their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' delay in challenging the policy decision and their failure to seek judicial redress in a timely manner amounted to acquiescence and laches, which were fatal to their case. The court emphasized the importance of being vigilant in seeking judicial redress and the impact of waiver and acquiescence on the relief sought by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of acquiescence, delay, and laches in challenging the policy decision of the State affecting the entire class of Medical Officers (Dental) and the failure to seek judicial review in a timely manner. The court also highlighted the importance of being vigilant in seeking judicial redress and the impact of waiver and acquiescence on the relief sought by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Suri, J. - This intra-court appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners against the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.12672 of 2017 titled 'Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others vs. State of Punjab and others'. The claim agitated in the writ petition was not entertained on the ground that order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-25) was sought to be challenged in the year 2017 and that it was within the domain of the executive as to whether the officers or persons who have substantial part of the service career in Medical/Dental Colleges as Member of the Teaching Faculty should be repatriated or not and as such is the prerogative of the State for resolving any issue arising there from, as per the need and in public interest. It was also held that the writ petitioners could not have a lien over such posts by raking up the issue of the order dated 28.02.2013 in the year 2017.

2. The facts in brief, noticed by the learned Single Judge are that the appellants were appointed as Medical Officers (Dental) with the Department of Health and Family Welfare in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission. They were governed by the Punjab Dental Service erstwhile (Class-II) Rules, 1968, as per the appointment letter (Annexure P-1). The writ petitioners, four in number have indicated their dates of joining in para No.3 of the writ petition, ranging from 10.12.1990 to 16.03.1999. After being appointed as Medical Officers (Dental), the writ petitioners served in Rural Dispensaries/Primary Health Centres in the State of Punjab. The writ petitioners were transferred/ posted by respondent No.1 in Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar/ Patiala as Medical Officer against the posts of Demonstrator/Senior Lecturer for teaching BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) students in Govt. Dental College and Hospital and later designated as Demonstrator. The said appointment was done after getting 'No Objection Certificate' from their parent Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Reference can be made to the transfer/posting orders, Annexures P-2 to P-6, as Demonstrator/ Assistant Professor. Reference has also been made to the Punjab Dental Education Service (Class-II) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred as 1977 Service Rules') for regulating the conditions of the service of the persons appointed to the Punjab Dental Education Class-II service.

3. The mode of recruitment is provided under Rule 10 of the 1977 Service Rules. As per the said Rule, the three modes of appointment to the post of Demonstrator are (i) direct appointment, (ii) by promotion and (iii) by way of transfer or deputation from any officials already in service of Govt. of India or the State Government. The qualifications stipulated for appointment to the post of a Demonstrator (Dental), as appearing in Appendix-B to the Service Rules, a person should have passed BDS degree from a recognized University or equivalent qualification with atleast 6 months experience as House Surgeon in a recognized Dental College and Hospital and should not have taken more than two additional attempts in passing all the University professional examinations during the BDS course with atleast 60% marks in the final BDS examination.

4. The petitioners were working as Medical Officers (Dental) and posted in the Medical Colleges, Dental Colleges and Ayurvedic Colleges, who were re-designated as Tutor/Lecturer-cum-Medical Officer vide order dated 08.08.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Medical Education and Research. The said order noticed that the re-designated Medical Officers were engaged in teaching in their own pay scale for the strengthening of Teaching Faculty. The terms and conditions of service were to remain same as per the original orders PCMS and PCDS etc. It is also reflected from the record that the aforementioned postings had been done on account of the acute shortage of Teaching