Dismissed

Nischint Sharma v. Prabodh Saxena and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC31 May 2017COPC/110/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged withdrawal of incentive marks alleging violation of a favorable judgment because he was required to supervise a Sub Centre staffed by health workers rather than being posted as a Medical Officer. The Court held no violation occurred, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as there was no violation of court orders; incentive marks were wrongly withdrawn only in the sense that petitioner was never entitled to them. Pending applications disposed of.

Nischint Sharma Vs Prabodh Saxena and Others — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.110 of 2017

¶2

Date of Decision : 31.5.2017

¶3

Dr. Nischint Sharma …Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

Shri Parbodh Saxena and others …Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Ms Abhilasha Kondal, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. M.a. Khan, Mr. Romesh Verma & Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶10

Sanjay Karol, ACJ

¶11

This Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No.971 of 2017, titled as Dr. Nischint Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, so filed by the petitioner, issued the following directions:

¶12

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent(s) No.2/3 to also consider the case of the petitioner in the next counseling to be held on 16.5.2017, in the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan

¶13

…2…

¶14

(2016) 9 SCC 749, as well as this Court in CWP No. 581 of 2017, titled as Dr. Aarti Dhatwalia v. State of H.P. and Ors., as also notification No. HFW-B(B) 14-3/2009-Loose dated 20.3.2017, as referred to in the prospectus itself and the petitioner shall be entitled to the incentive marks in terms of the decision rendered by this Court.”

¶15

which allegedly stand violated, rather intentionally and willfully.

¶16

From the response, so filed by the State, it is evident that petitioner, was otherwise not entitled to the benefit of additional marks, in terms of the prospectus. Relevant portion of the response is extracted as under:

¶17

“That it is submitted that the present petitioner is posted as Medical Officer against vacancy at Primary Health Centre Jangalberi in District Hamirpur on contract basis w.e.f. 19.02.2015 till date. It is submitted that as per the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur as conveyed vide letter dated 16.05.2017, the Primary Health Centre Jangalberi falls under the Gram Panchayat Jangal, Block Sujanpur, District Hamirpur and is not the backward Gram Panchayat, as per the lists of any identified hard/different/tribal/ backward areas/Panchayat in the policy dated 20.03.2017.

¶18

That it is further submitted that there is a Health Sub Centre located in Village Jandroo where the post of Medical Oficer does not exist. It is submitted that in the absence of any vacancy of Medical Officer, the petitioner cannot be said to have been served in the said Medical Institution for the purpose of benefit of incentive marks, which is infact

¶19

…3…

¶20

manned by the Male Health Worker and Female Health Worker.

¶21

That it is submitted that the orders for allocation of Sub Centre Jandroo for overall administrative matters alongwith supporting supervision cannot be taken to be as service/ posting in that institution in terms of the policy, more specifically in the absence of any vacancy as also in the absence of working as Medical Officer in that institution concerned. Accordingly, the incentive marks as given earlier to the petitioner erroneously vide letter dated 15.05.2017 were withdrawn by the department vide letter dated 16.05.2017.”

¶22

Petitioner, while working as a Doctor, had

¶23

applied for in-service GDO Category, for admission to the Postgraduate Degree (MD/MS) Courses, in various specialities, is not in dispute. From the record, it is clear that petitioner was posted at PHC Jangalberi, under Sujanpur Block, which falls under Gram Panchayat Jangal, Block Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, which is not a backward Panchayat, as notified in the lists as annexed with the prospectus.

¶24

Undisputedly, petitioner was also asked to discharge the duties of Sub Centre, Jandroo, which in fact does fall within the area notified in the category of hard/difficult/backward area. But then, it is not that petitioner was actually posted at village Jandroo. He was

¶25

…4…

¶26

only asked to discharge administrative functions qua the said Sub Centre, where no post of Medical Officer exists. The said Sub Centre, in fact, is manned by a Male Health Worker and a Female Health Wroker. Doctors do not sit in the Centre. Mere supervision of the Centre itself would not entitle the petitioner for the benefit of reservation, so stipulated in the prospectus, for the object and purpose of giving advantage to the candidate being that he should have actually served the notified areas as a Doctor as none was willing to be posted there. People in these areas required urgent, proper and better medical aid, which led the Government frame the Policy.

¶27

Hence, we do not find the respondents to have violated the order in any manner to have lowered the dignity of the Court in the estimation of the general public. There is no violation, muchless intentional or willful. As such, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶28

Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.

¶29

( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice

¶30

May 31, 2017(sd)

¶31

( Sandeep Sharma ), Judge.

Nischint Sharma v. Prabodh Saxena and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nischint Sharma v. Prabodh Saxena and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Chief Secretary

Chumana Devi Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Others

Vikas Chauhan Vs Prabodh Saxena and Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp

Csk Hpkvv Vs B.L.Dhiman

Csk Hpkvv Vs Savitri Devi