The High Court dismissed a writ petition where an Ayush Medical Officer challenged the withdrawal of permission for an MD Ayurveda course due to age and service constraints, finding no grounds for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
202+117IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2577-2021 (O&M) CM-4505-CWP-2021 CM-6636-CWP-2021 CM-8029-CWP-2021 CM-9709-CWP-2021 CM-332-CWP-2022 Date of Decision: 14.01.2022
JAGIR SINGH
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Arya, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
(Presence marked through video conference)
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Grievance of the petitioner, serving as an Ayush Medical Officer in the State of Haryana, is qua an order dated 25.01.2021, whereby, `No Objection Certificate’ granted to him vide an earlier order dated 15.01.2021, granting him permission to take admission in MD Ayurveda (Panchkarma) Course for the academic session 2020-2021, was withdrawn. 2. Essentially, the controversy involved herein is as to whether or not, the petitioner is (a) eligible for admission in the course of MD Ayurveda (b) if eligible, is he, as a matter of right, entitled to relaxation of the maximum age i.e. 45 years prescribed for admission in the course by the
SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.17 02:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order
department. Concededly, the petitioner as on the date of applying for the admission was 47 year and 01 month old.
“ That the respondent no.1 and 2 has filed the written statement to the writ petition filed by the present petitioner by taking preliminary submissions. In 1st preliminary submission which is affirmative and explained the prayer of the writ petition for quashing of the order Annexure P-10, no objection has been raised for the same by the respondent no.1 and 2. In para no.2 of the preliminary submission, it is said with regard to the notification of reserving three seats and against which the present petitioner has applied and NOC has been given. In para no.3 & 4 of the preliminary submission, it is stated that as per condition no.(ix) of the policy dated 16.11.2018 which required before relieving the employee from the department, he or she have to execute a service bond for a period of 7 years and it is stated that minimum 7 years of service is required for after completion of PG Degree and the present petitioner is completing the same and took the objection that there is a violation of condition no.(ix) of the policy dated 16.11.2018 which is factually incorrect. The present petitioner has filed the replication by mentioning specifically that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.02.1973. The petitioner has joined the services on 09.10.2000 and date of retirement of the petitioner would be 28.02.2031, the classes were started on 18.02.2021, the course of MD Ayurveda will be completed till 17.02.2024 within 3 years. The petitioner will be left with the service of 7 years and 11 days. If it is presumed that the classes would have been started on 01.03.2021 even then the course will be completed on 28.02.2024 within 3 years. The petitioner is going to be retired on 28.02.2031, even after completing the
SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.17 02:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order
course/degree MD Ayurveda, the present petitioner is having 7 years of his service. The petitioner fulfills the condition of the NOC which has already been granted on 15.01.2021. Therefore, there is no violation of the notification/policy as alleged by the respondent no.1 and 2. Therefore, the order dated 25.01.20021 (Annexure P-10) and minutes of the meeting as well as order dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P-15) and letter dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P-17) are illegal, arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India as well as violative of instructions, rules and regulations and liable to be set aside.”
eligible as he has little more than 07 years of service left after he finishes the course. The above stand was taken in the un-amended petition also and is uncontroverted as no fresh return theretohas been filed. Inview thereof, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was indeed eligible for admission.
:-
“7. xxx xxx xxx
SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.17 02:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order
payment an amount of Rs.10 lacs in lieu thereof in the case of PG diploma.”
“ Learned State counsel seeks time to file amended reply, if any, to the amended petition, after obtaining instructions.
In case, no reply is filed on or before the next date of hearing, let a specific short affidavit be filed with regard to the averments contained in para 8 of the amended petition. It be deposed therein whether or not any relaxation was given to one Dr. Dinesh Sharma and if so, what was the period of relaxation and the compelling circumstances warranting such relaxation. In case an affidavit is not filed, learned State counsel to seek verbal instructions and assist the Court. Post it on 14.01.2022.”
counsel submits that due to paucity of time, the affidavit could not be filed. However, per his instructions from Mr. AditRana, Law Officer, Ayush
Department,he submits that as far as query No.1 and 2, it is correct that
SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.17 02:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order
indeed he was over aged by little more than two years and relaxation was given. As regards the 3rd query, as to the circumstances which warranted the relaxation, learned State counsel apprises this Court that for the relevant academic year, there was no other candidate competing for the slot qua which Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma was granted admission. Therefore, there was no likely prejudice to be caused to anyone. He submits that there are only limited number of seats and admission is granted as per merit to the limited candidates, who are found eligible.
SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.17 02:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order
make any observations qua the same and it is for the respondents to take
their own view on the same, if they so wish.
January 14, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SHALINI BHATIA 2022.01.17 02:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was eligible for admission to MD Ayurveda course given the service bond requirement after post-graduate training.
Whether the petitioner has a right to relaxation of the maximum age limit for postgraduate admission.
Jagir Singh
State of Haryana
Arun Monga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
