AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
(A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction for the quashing of impugned rejection letter issued by the respondents vide Annexure P-8 whereby the petitioner was held ineligible under State Sponsored/departmental candidate to undergo PG/MD/MS Course with the endorsement that he has not completed the services as per PG Policy as notified on 16.7.2010 (Annexure P-9) and all further communications in pursuance of this Order.
(B) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction directing the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for appearing in MD/MS entrance exam (Session Jan. 2012-December, 2014) of PGIMER Chandigarh, under GDO sponsored quota from State Government as he has already complied and rendered three years service in rural area as per the policy prevailing of that time ivied policy no. Health-A-B (7)-A/2000 dated 10th May, 2007 and further direct the respondents not to implement/execute the subsequent amendment of service of four years in rural area vide para IV of the notification dated 16th July, 2010 from retrospective effect.
Learned Additional Advocate General has made available the instruction dated 15th November, 2011 from the Additional Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, which reads as follows, to the extent relevant:
...In this context, it is submitted that the petitioner, who was/ is the appointee of 16.7.2008, had applied for undergoing MD/MS Course in PGI Chandigarh for the session January 2012. It is added that since as per PG Policy notified on 16.7.2010, Annexure P-9, the minimum required service for becoming eligible in the case of the petitioner was/is 4 years, he had/has rightly been denied NOC by the Department vide letter dated 30.9.2011, Annexure P-8, strictly in accordance with the Policy referred ibid. It is further relevant to submit here that the provisions of the policy had/have uniformly to be applicable to all and it is not the petitioner only who was/is to be covered under the same. The relaxation granted by the Government vide its letter No. HFW-B(B) 12-2/2007, dated 29.12.2010 is applicable to the batch of 2011-12/14 whereas the petitioner had applied for the session 2012-13/15 and hence, as such, no relaxation for any candidate for the academic session 2012 onwards has been granted in the matter.
Having gone through the service particulars of the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has served around three years in Himachal Pradesh during his military service. Going by the policy, it is seen that the service required is four years in Himachal Pradesh, excluding municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, Municipal Council, Solan and notified area of Baddi-Barotiwala, Nalagarh. According to the petitioner, he satisfies the requirement of four years in case his military service is counted. The policy has not made any distinction as to whether the service should be in State service or military service. It is further pointed out that the military service is counted for various service benefits in the State. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for counting his service alleged to have been rendered in Himachal Pradesh during his military service for the purpose of consideration of his case for admission to PG/MD/MS Course under the State Sponsored quota. The consideration of the case, as above, shall be done within two days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the second respondent. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Authenticated copy to the petition, today itself.