IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G. S. Sandhawalia,Vikas Suri, JJ.
Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
LPA No. 1347 of 2017
Decided On : 02-06-2022
Acquiescence - Medical Officers (Dental) - Punjab Dental Service erstwhile (Class-II) Rules, 1968, Punjab Dental Education Service (Class-II) Rules, 1977 - The court discussed the appointment rules, qualifications, and the process for appointment to the post of Demonstrator. The judgment also highlighted the rejection of the Expert Committee's report and the subsequent challenges by affected persons. The court emphasized the principle of acquiescence and delay in seeking judicial redress, especially in policy matters affecting a class of persons.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, Medical Officers (Dental), sought recognition of their teaching experience and challenged the rejection of the Expert Committee's report. The court noted their delay in challenging the decision and emphasized the principle of acquiescence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioners had delayed in challenging the decision and had acquiesced to the orders, leading to their dismissal of the writ petition. The court emphasized the principle of acquiescence and delay in seeking judicial redress, especially in policy matters affecting a class of persons.
Issues: Delay in challenging the decision, acquiescence to the orders, recognition of teaching experience, and policy matters affecting a class of persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of acquiescence and delay in seeking judicial redress, especially in policy matters affecting a class of persons, was emphasized by the court.
Final Decision: The intra-court appeal was partly allowed, and the writ petition was restored to its original number to be heard with another related case. The court emphasized the principle of acquiescence and delay in seeking judicial redress, especially in policy matters affecting a class of persons.
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.l 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 Teachin
K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India [(1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226
L.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jaswant Singh and another
State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others
The principle of acquiescence and delay in seeking judicial redress, especially in policy matters affecting a class of persons, was established by the court.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was not entitled to antedated appointment, and the principle of res judicata did not apply to the subsequent writ petitions file....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition for retrospective promotion under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act and Rules, and the significance of seniority in determinin....
Long-settled service positions via departmental recognition of appointments, seniority, and promotions over a decade cannot be disturbed on debatable cadre interpretations or disputed eligibility fac....
The court upheld the validity of appointments made under the reservation policy, emphasizing that claims regarding seniority must be raised timely and that errors in selection processes should not pe....
The principle of res judicata bars the respondents from raising any objection with regard to the legality of the appointments of the petitioners.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.