Home   Contact Us


Enter College / University Name or City:


  Chandigarh

Colleges
Other Institutes
Home > Chandigarh > Medical > Chandigarh > Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32)


Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh, Chandigarh



Contact


Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Address:Block D, Level-ll, Sector 32-B
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh, India
Pin Code : 160030


Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh is a recognised institute / college. Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh is also known as Rajkiya Ayurvigyan Mahavidalaya.

Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh was established on / in 20 January, 1991.


Principal of Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh is Prof. Raj Bahadur, Prof. Atul Sachdev.

Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh is situated in Chandigarh of Chandigarh state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Chandigarh comes under Chandigarh Tehsil, Chandigarh District.

Fax # of Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh is +91-172-2609360, 2608488.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh are 09646199999.

email ID(s) is Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32) Chandigarh Chandigarh

Website of Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh is http://gmch.nic.in.


Contact Details of Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh are : Telephone: +91-172-2665253-60, 2665545-49, 2669180, 2669182, 2669569, 2662200- to-04, 2663301, 2663303


Courses

MBBS
MD - Anaesthesiology
MD - Anatomy
MD - Community Medicine
MD - Forensic Medicine
MD - Obstetrtics & Gynaecology
MD - Paediatrics
MD - Pathology
MD - Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases
MS - ENT
MS - Ophthalmology
MS - Orthopaedics


Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh runs course(s) in Medical stream(s).

Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32) is affiliated with Panjab University, Chandigarh (Chandigarh)


Profile of Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32)

In view of the ever increasing population of the city of Chandigarh, a second 500-bedded General Hospital had become a necessity not only for catering to the needs of patients in the southern sectors of the city but also to cater for patients from the satellite townships of Panchkula and SAS Nagar. The first 500-bedded General Hospital in sector 16 remains choked with the flow of patients from the first phase sectors of the city and the surrounding states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and western parts of Uttar Pradesh. The Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, located in sector 12, Chandigarh was conceived as a premier referral centre for the northern states of India.

Government Medical College and HospitalThe second General Hospital in Sector 32 had been planned to serve the second phase sectors, thereby relieving pressure on General Hospital, Sector 16 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), so that the latter could serve as a first rate referral hospital.

Chandigarh, best educational facilities in the country. Besides the Panjab University and the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, it has an Engineering College, College of Arts, College of Architecture, a number of Government and Private Degree Colleges and other prestigious and important research institutions. Somehow, the city had lacked a Medical College for graduate studies, i.e. MBBS. The deficiency was most glaring. GMC provides opportunity of a career in medicine to many promising students who were denied of this opportunity because of domicile� restrictions imposed by the states in which these colleges are located.

About us
Chandigarh has the best educational facilities in the country. Besides the Panjab University and the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, it has an Engineering College, College of Arts, College of Architecture, a number of Government and Private Degree Colleges and other prestigious and important research institutions. Somehow, the city had lacked a Medical College for graduate studies, i.e. MBBS. The deficiency was most glaring. GMC provides opportunity of a career in medicine to many promising students who were denied of this opportunity because of ‘domicile’ restrictions imposed by the states in which these colleges are located

In view of the start of the Medical College in the city, the Chandigarh Administration created the Department of Medical Education & Research. The College was granted provisional affiliation for the MBBS course by the Panjab University, vide letter No. 8334/Mis dated 12.9.91, and permanent affiliation vide letter No.2730/A-4/Misc dated 3.4.99 for 50 admissions annually.

Admissions to this Medical College have strictly been on merit on the basis of Combined Entrance Test conducted by the Panjab University. The first batch of 50 students was admitted in August, 1991 and each subsequent year similar batches have been admitted. The first academic session was inaugurated in September, 1991 by Sh. Baleshwar Rai, the then Adviser to the Administrator of Chandigarh. The first batch of students passed their final MBBS examinations conducted by the Panjab University in January, 1996 and completed their 12 months compulsory rotating internship in January, 1997.

The second and third batches of medical students have also finished their internship, while the fourth (1995) batch is currently undergoing their internship training. Students of this College have consistently done well at various University examinations conducted by the Panjab University. A large number of students have secured admissions to postgraduate courses at PGI, Chandigarh, AIIMS, New Delhi and through the All India PG Entrance Examination. They have also performed consistently well at interviews conducted by the UPSC, Armed Forces Medical Services and various state Public Service Commissions. A number of students have secured placements abroad, mainly in the USA, with high percentile marks in the USMLE examination.

In addition to academic excellence, students of this College have consistently performed well at different cultural, literary and sports activities.The Medical College has nearly 250 teaching staff in basic and clinical departments in addition to 70 junior residents. The faculty is highly qualified and selected directly or through the PGI, Chandigarh, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi and the states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and J&K.

The College has been recognised for the award of MBBS degree by Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare w.e.f. 30 December, 1996, vide letter No.34(41)98-Med./21035 dated 9.11.98, and has been included in the list of recognised Medical Colleges by the Medical Council of India vide letter No.MCI-34(41)97-Med/2276 dated 25.4.97.

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32)

GMCH trauma centre to come up in Sector 53 (Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32))
News: 15th August, 2014
GMCH trauma centre to come up in Sector 53
Junior Occupational Therapist (Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32))
Job Vacancy: 9th August, 2014
Junior Occupational Therapist

BSc Nursing course (Admission Notice)
BSc Nursing course (Admission Notice)
Second Counselling held for MBBS (Counselling)
Kitni representation ayi thi jo reservation de di (News)
MBBS seats increased from 50 to 100 (News)
Medical aspirants meet union health minister over GMCH issue (News)
MBBS seatd decreased (News)
Medical aspirants stage protest (News)
GMCH fined Rs 20 lakh by EPFO regional office (News)
Protest by medical aspirants today (News)
BSc in Paramedical (Admission Notice)
B Optom course (Admission Notice)
GMCH 32 to review decision (News)
GMCH reserves MBBS seat on home secys order (News)
GMCH to seek MCI approval for 50 more seats (News)
Chaos rules MBBS counselling over refusal of 50 more seats (News)
GMCH me counselling se pehle 50 seats kharij (News)
Blood donation camp held (News)
BSc in Medical Laboratory (Admission Notice)
Syringes out of stock (News)
Auction notice for E waste material (Advertisement)
Meet on gastrointestinal infection ends at GMCH (News)
26 din ki bachi ko sath le degree lene pahunchi Dr Kashish (News)
GMCH ghost staff scam (News)
Seats in PG Courses from 40 to 61 (News)
MBBS students end protest (News)
Students protest against increase in duration of MBBS course (News)
GMCH spends Rs 2 cr on animal house (News)
Senior Resident and Central Casualty Services (Job Vacancy)
Construction of Building (Tender)
Workshop on pain education (News)
Contract of operation Laundry Plant (Tender)
Stop cheating, GMCH uploads medicines price list on website (News)
GMCH Chemist shops tender challenged in HC (News)
Special recruitment drive for Ex Servicemen (Advertisement)
AIDS conference begins at GMCH 32 (News)
Fellowship Programme in Neonatology (Admission Notice)
Fellowship program in Pediatricss (Admission Notice)
Fellowship Program held (Admission Notice)
Medical Education on Biochemistry (News)
Maintenance of Loundry Plant (Tender)
GMCH to purchase injection and oxygen cylinders (News)
Medical studies, research in for major boost in state (Profile)
Chemist shop lease issue, GMCH to move court (News)
Supply of Air conditioning system (Tender)
GMCH get network system to link all depts (News)
Triple test started (News)
Students participate in writing compitition (News)
Auction for waste material (Public Notice)
SD College cagers crowned champions (News)
HC orders new tenders for MRI machine (News)
Annual day celebrated (News)
HC orders on MBBS admissions to GMCH withdrawn (News)
Traffic cop hurt in hit and run case (News)
Reader and Sr Lecturer (Job Vacancy)
HC issues summons to GMCH 32 (News)
MBBS seats increased from 50 to 100 (Profile)
HC restrains from declaring final MBBS merit list (News)
Court frames charges against actor for assaulting student (News)
50 more MBBS aspirants allowed to apply, GMCH to HC (News)
MBBS counselling challenged in court (News)
MBBS course (Counselling)
Operation Theatre Assistant (Job Vacancy)
MBBS course (Admission Notice)
Extension to Dr Harsh Mohan (News)
MBBS seats full (News)
MBBS course (Counselling)
MBBS counselling after 31st of July (News)
MBBS and BDS course (Admission Notice)
End of Pain Management Workshop (News)
Trauma Workshop (News)
Sports cum recreation centre in GMCH (News)
Controversy on MBBS quota (News)
MBBS and BDS (Counselling)
BAMS and BHMS counselling Obstructed (Counselling)
2nd counselling of MD and MS (Counselling)
Housekeeper for Hostel (Job Vacancy)
Court Summon to Dr Rajbahadur (News)
MS and MDS Courses (Counselling)
Nurse Hospital ki reedh ki haddi, Prof Sachdeva (News)
Staff Nurse (Job Vacancy)
Staff Nurse for Ex serviceman catagory (Job Vacancy)
Kiran Kher visit GMCH (News)
Free Cancer treatment in Medical Colleges (News)
Prof Sachdeva Director (News)
Vijay 4th time bane adhyaksh (News)
Interview for Director Principal (News)
Disability camp held (News)
Senior Lecturer (Job Vacancy)
Medical Students se ched chad (News)
12 doctors karenge heart operations (News)
Kale coat ko tarse medical students (News)
Vaba awarded to Dr Sonia Puri (News)
Bina joining duty kar rha Male Nurse (News)
Health sachiv and Bharat sarkar ne manga samay (News)
GMCH me doctor ki pitai par me bethak aaj (News)
Annual Program me bhide Medical College ke Students (News)
Mariz ne jada doctor ko thapad (News)
PGI ko 19 feb ke liye notice (News)
GMCH me 8 ko ho chuki hai H1N1 se maut (News)
GMCH me khulegi RIAHS (News)
Achievements and Upcoming Projects (Profile)
kamando ke liye karyashala ayojit (News)
GMCH 32 me Nursing ki sankhya hui 450 (News)
21 javano ko bataye mushkil se nipatne ke gur (News)
GMCH me Professor Rajbahadur ke 5 saal pure (News)
Naye Saal me agaaz (News)
Kam daam me milegi suvidha (News)
OPD rahengi band (News)
Automated Tissue Processor etc (Tender)
GMCH me medicines out of stock (News)
Supply of Exercise Physiology system (Tender)
Senior Lecturer (Job Vacancy)
Clinical Psychology etc (Job Vacancy)
Breast Cancer ke khilaf jagrukta ki daur (News)
Nurse vallo zehrila injection lga ke khudkushi (News)
Nurse suicide with Poisonous injection (News)
Senior Lecturer (Job Vacancy)
Ms Charanjit kaur (Public Notice)
Laparoscopic Set with Accessories etc (Tender)
MBBS and BDS Courses (Counselling)
College block almost complete, Centre sanctions Rs 41.5 Cr (News)
Paramedical Courses 2012 (Admission Notice)
Absorbent Cotton Gauze and Surgical Items etc (Tender)
MD and MS Courses (Admission Notice)
Postponement of Interview (Public Notice)
Result of Lab Technician and Lab Attendent etc (Job Vacancy)
The Pre Bid Conference is rescheduled (Corrigendum)
Message of Director Prof Raj Bahadur etc (Profile)
Inquiry against Satinder Kaur Steno Typist (Public Notice)
Installation of Five Machines (Tender)
MD MS Entrance Test (Entrance Test)
Joint Entrance Screening Test (Entrance Test)
Regarding Departmental Inquiry against Ms Satinder Kaur (Public Notice)
Fellowship in Neonatology (Admission Notice)
Data Entry Operator (Job Vacancy)
Junior Lab Technician (Job Vacancy)
Programmer and Social Worker (Job Vacancy)
Associate and Assistant Professors (Job Vacancy)
Public Appointment (Job Vacancy)
M Phill Clinical Psychology (Admission Notice)
Licensing out of Snack Bar (Tender)
Registration of Manufacturing Firms (Tender)
MPhill in Clinical Psychology and Psychiatric Social work etc (Admission Notice)
BAMS Course (Admission Notice)
Short Term Tender Notice (Advertisement)
Notice to Chandigarh Administrate and etc (News)
licensing out of Canteen (Tender)
Purchase drugs Surgical consumables and dressing materials etc (Tender)
Public Notice (Advertisement)
Change in tender notice (Corrigendum)
Goverment Medical College and Hospital (News)
Staff Nurse Ms Surekha Newton (Public Notice)
Psychiatric Nursing (Tender)
Tutor in Psychiatric Nursing (Job Vacancy)
Profile of the Medical College (Advertisement)
Notice for registration of manufacturing firms (Tender)
Reader required (Job Vacancy)
Public Notice ()
Proffesor Assistant Proffesor and Associate Professor (Job Vacancy)
Result Notice (Advertisement)
Reader Senior Lecturer and Senior Lecturer in Radiodiagnosis etc (Job Vacancy)
Addedum in the post of Senior Residents (Public Notice)
Public Notice and Addendum (Advertisement)
Purchase drugs and dressing materials (Tender)
Neonatal Cooling System and Microlaryngeal Surgery Instrument set etc (Tender)
B Sc Medical Technology (Admission Notice)
Reader Senior Lecturer and Physiotherapist etc (Job Vacancy)
Paramedical courses (Admission Notice)
Public Notice (Profile)
MBBS BDS BAMS and BHMS etc (Admission Notice)
Public Appointnments (Admission Notice)
Proferssors required at government medical college (Job Vacancy)
General Catagory and some other Catagories (Job Vacancy)
B.Sc (Admission Notice)
Parents cry foul over NRI quota (News)
LAW OFFICER , CLERK (Job Vacancy)
CLERKS (Job Vacancy)
READER, WORKSHOP WORKERS , LECTURER, PHYSIOTHERAPIST (Job Vacancy)
MBBS BAMS and BHMS (Admission Notice)
Fine of Rs 1 lac (News)
CT scan centre still fleecing (News)
CT Scan machine reached GMCH (News)
For records sake, GMCH thinks IT (News)
Security and Fire works (Tender)
MBBS course (Admission Notice)
Inauguration of final phase of construction (News)
ECG Technicians and operation theatre Assistant (Job Vacancy)
Ms Rajwinder Kaur Staff Nurse (Public Notice)
Tutor for Psychiatric Nursing (Public Notice)
Public Appointment Notice (Advertisement)

Media coverage of Government Medical College and Hospital (Sector 32), Chandigarh Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Government Medical College and Hospital surgeries put on hold

CHANDIGARH: All surgeries planned for the day were put on hold following a days strike called by 300 nurses at the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Sector 32 on Friday. Though the strike was called off in the afternoon, it crippled many services. Everyday 35 surgeries are performed. Though the emergency services were not hit, patient care in the wards was affected.

The nursing association had sent its charter of 35 demands to the hospital administration. We have agreed to the demands whichever are within our authority. There will be no disciplinary action against the nursing staff which went on strike as they compensated for loss in duty hours by working double shift after the strike was called off, said Dr Vipin Kaushal, medical superintendent, GMCH.

This has set a wrong precedence. When the administration had warned them before going on mass casual leave, taking no action seems awkward and manipulative, said a senior faculty.

The nurses had been protesting for over a week. Right from silent protests to dharna, wearing batches and going on two-day hunger strike, they finally went in for strike on Friday morning. The nursing associations have been agitating over pay scale and staff shortage. Against 703 posts sanctioned for nurses, only 300 are working at present. One of the major demands of nurses included, allowing central pay scale and central civil service rules. We have been assured that within three months all our demands will be fulfilled, said Vijay Kumar, president of the nursing association, GMCH.

According to the GMCH officials they have already advertised for 400 posts of nurses. We had announced no work, no pay when nurses decided to go on strike. But as they joined back by 2 pm and worked in double shift, we will not mark them absent, said Dr Kaushal.

SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGE and HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER CWP 22857 of 2010


Sukhvinder Singh vs. Govt. Medical College and Hospital and another

Present: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied if his representation dated 10.10.2010(Annexure P-3) is decided by respondent No.1.

I find this request to be fair and just.

In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if respondent No.1 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a
speaking order thereon.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.

( AJAY TEWARI )
JUDGE


Chaos at GMCH: Rebel doctors on strike, patients left stranded

Chandigarh: A mass strike by the resident doctors of GMCH (Government Medical College and Hospital) in the city s sector-32 area led to chaos with patients, some in urgent need of treatment, left helpless.

A woman named Kalavati, who was taken to the hospital in a sub-conscious state, received no service and had to look for another hospital in an extremely weak state.

Kalavati s husband said that the doctors told them that today is a holiday and nobody is on duty; so they have to go to some other hospital for treatment.

The few senior doctors and department heads of the hospital were left to manage the emergency services.

The doctors on mass leave put the blame squarely on the hospital authority for mismanagement.

Resident Doctors Association s chief Dr Abhishek said that there is a huge shortage of resident doctors in the hospital but neither the GMCH authority nor the Chandigarh administration are taking the problem seriously. No steps are being taken for recruitment of more doctors.

The most-affected departments are the surgery and medicine departments, where maximum doctors are required, he added.

The agitated doctors revealed that an examination was held for recruitment of doctors on July 6 and the results came out as late as September 6. Till then all examinees had found other jobs and nobody joined GMCH. If the authorities had done a timely job, this situation could have been avoided.

Medical Council of India team visits GMCH

Chandigarh: Presenting her degree and other documents to the Medical Council of India team, Dr Alka Sehgal, gynaecologist of Government Medical College and Hospital Chandigarh (GMCH), asked whether her medical degree was fake. In 2003, a case lodged with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against Dr Sehgal, questioning the genuineness of her medical degree.

She raised the question that many doctors possessing the same degree were working in the country; thus, why did her degree came under the scanner? The Medical Council of India team suggested registering the issue on the website of the Medical Council of India.

The Medical Council of India team has been inspecting the GMCH hospital for the last two days. The team has collected information about the GMCH faculty.

According to sources, during the inspection carried out by the team it was found that house surgeons are recruited for a period of six months. Their work duration starts every year in July and January, but the house surgeon, who was supposed to come in July, has not joined duty so far.

Dr Sehgal pursued her MD from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh (PGI), but she got the degree from the Panjab University. The PGI had this facility some years back. As the PGI is an autonomous body, the MD and MBBS degrees do not require recognition from the Medical Council of India. In 2003, Dr Sehgal raised questions about the promotion of some doctors of the GMCH and filed a petition in this regard.

Medical Council of India team visits GMCH

Chandigarh: Presenting her degree and other documents to the Medical Council of India team, Dr Alka Sehgal, gynaecologist of Government Medical College and Hospital Chandigarh (GMCH), asked whether her medical degree was fake. In 2003, a case lodged with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against Dr Sehgal, questioning the genuineness of her medical degree.

She raised the question that many doctors possessing the same degree were working in the country; thus, why did her degree came under the scanner? The Medical Council of India team suggested registering the issue on the website of the Medical Council of India.

The Medical Council of India team has been inspecting the GMCH hospital for the last two days. The team has collected information about the GMCH faculty.

According to sources, during the inspection carried out by the team it was found that house surgeons are recruited for a period of six months. Their work duration starts every year in July and January, but the house surgeon, who was supposed to come in July, has not joined duty so far.

Dr Sehgal pursued her MD from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh (PGI), but she got the degree from the Panjab University. The PGI had this facility some years back. As the PGI is an autonomous body, the MD and MBBS degrees do not require recognition from the Medical Council of India. In 2003, Dr Sehgal raised questions about the promotion of some doctors of the GMCH and filed a petition in this regard.

Suicide case in GMCH Charges frames against two students

Suicide case in GMCH Charges frames against two students
Chandigarh In a significant development,a lower court of Chandigarh framed charges against two youths, classmates of Jaspreet Singh, for abetting Singh to commit suicide. The two allegedly had made casteist remarks against Singh, which forced him to take the extreme step.

The charges have been framed more than two and half years after Jaspreet Singh, a third semester MBBS Student at the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector 32, Chandigarh, died.
The Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Gurbir Singh framed charges against Ajay Parvin and Deepak on charges of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were framed after father of the deceased had sought framing of charges against the two classmates for driving Singh to end his life.
The court has already framed charges against NK Goel, head of the department of community medicine, GMCH-32. As per prosecution, on January 27, 2008, final year MBBS student Jaspreet Singh had committed suicide on the college premises.
Jaspreet had hanged himself from the ceiling fan of the toilet of the hostel library on the fifth floor of the hospitals B-Block. In his suicide note, Singh had held the professor and two of his classmates responsible for his suicide.

On January 28, 2008, Goel and the two GMCH-32 students were booked for abetting Jaspreet to commit suicide. The suicide note had mentioned that the three used to ridicule him about his caste.
Later, the names of the classmates were dropped after the inquiry board cleared them of the charges. On September 11, 2008, the Chandigarh police had filed chargesheet against Goel in the suicide case, based on an inquiry report submitted by a GMCH committee, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory report of the suicide note.

Labourer dies on duty, contractor gets one year in jail
A local contractor was awarded one-year imprisonment for the death of his employee by negligence by a local court. Girwar Singh, the contractor, was booked by the Chandigarh Police under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The incident dates back to October 22, 2002 when 17-year-old Chhote Lal, a resident of Bihar, had died after tonnes of soil fell over the 13-feet deep pit in which he was laying sewer pipeline in Sector 52.
According to the prosecution, Chhote Lal along with two other labourers were working in the pit, when the earth on the pits edge, started falling in.
The two other labourers escaped. Attempts were made to rescue Chhote Lal.

Decade after, spinal centre still awaits inauguration

Chandigarh Even after a decade of its conception, the Regional Spinal Injuries Centre (RSIC) in Mohali, still awaits inauguration, as the building is yet to be handed over to the Department of Social Welfare, Punjab.
As of now, the building is still with the Punjab State Industrial and Exports Corporation (PSIEC) which had undertaken the task to construct it.

Dr Raj Bahadur, project director and director principal, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 said, We have already written to the Punjab Chief minister for the inauguration of the building. Most likely it will be done in a months time. It is a call that will be taken by the department of Social Welfare, Punjab.

The project which was conceived in 2000 following a collaboration between the then Punjab government and Union government. The actual work started with a grant of Rs 1.56 crore from the Centre. Half-way through its construction, the project stalled and did not resume until 2004 when the Punjab government released a grant of Rs 2.8 crore.
The cost of the project, which is the second of its kind after the first one in New Delhi, escalated from the initial cost of Rs 3 crore to Rs 10 crore.

As of now, the centre is providing medical help only to outdoor patients, with the number of outpatients registered with the centre totaling around 40,000 during the last five years. Other than the OPD, the physiotherapy department is also functional. However, the indoor facility for critical patients is yet to be made functional.



UT to hire doctors on contract

For the first time, the UT Health Department is going to hire doctors for its hospitals in the city on contract. The proposal which was sent a month back by the health department to the UT Administration for approval has been given the go-ahead by the Advisor to the UT Administrator K K Sharma.

In fact, they have decided to hire specialists including gynecologists, orthopedists, pediatricians, and endocrinologists for Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector 16, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 and Community Health Centre, Sector 22, Government Hospital, Manimajra besides for various dispensaries.
Director Health Services, Dr Chander Mohan speaking with the Chandigarh Newsline said, We had sent the proposal in May and now it has been accepted. In a day or two, we will decide the criteria to hire the doctors and accordingly issue advertisements. The idea is to hire the doctors as early as possible.

Sources say that once the current shortage of doctors is taken care of, the plan to upgrade the Community Health Centre would also be expedited. The Health department has planned to upgrade the Centre into a full fledged community hospital with different specialised wards for patient care. The aim is to ease out the ever increasing burden of patients on GMSH Sector 16 and GMCH Sector 32, he added.

The health department has been battling with considerable shortage of doctors. This, despite the fact that the health department gets its share of doctors on deputation from Punjab and Haryana.
However, even after repeated reminders sent to both Punjab and Haryana government to send panel of doctors on deputation at the Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector 16, failed to bring in any doctors, the hospital authorities decided to hire 30 doctors on


Administration directed to pay R 8 lakh compensation to victim of medical negligence

Chandigarh: The consumer forum here has directed the Chandigarh administration and a government hospital to pay compensation of Rs 8 lakh to the family of a Kurukshetra resident who died due to negligence of hospital doctors, a forum official said here on Saturday.

Holding the Chandigarh administration and Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) guilty of negligence, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed the health secretary of Chandigarh and GMCH to pay this amount to the family of the deceased, Hitender Kakkar (25).

According to the complaint filed by Hitender s parents Geeta Kakkar and Gurwinditta Kakkar, their son was admitted in the burns ward of GMCH in October 2008, with burn injuries that he had sustained due to fire-cracker explosion. Hitender was recovering well but on Nov 8 he was shifted from his bed number 1 to bed number 8 as his bed was allotted to another patient, Praveen Kumar.

Bed number 8 which was allotted, was not sterilized. We objected to that sudden shifting, but nobody listened to us and the hospital staff did not give us any satisfactory reply, said Geeta Saturday.

Praveen Kumar died on the same evening and then our son was again shifted to bed number 1. This time again the bed was not sterilized and the condition of our son started deteriorating and he died. He had contracted infection due to the negligence of hospital staff, she said.

Besides, the forum has also directed the administration and GMCH to pay Rs 10,000 to the complainants as the cost of litigation.

In the argument, counsel for GMCH had maintained that the hospital staff was not negligent and utmost care was taken while treating the patient.

Critically injured man goes missing from hospital

Chandigarh: In a strange incident, a critically injured patient disappeared from the hospital where police had admitted him and has been missing for more than a month now.

Thirty three year old Shankar met with an accident on April 9 near Fatehgarh Saheb. Police arrived at the spot and took him to a nearby hospital. However, his situation grew critical and he was transferred to Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Chandigarh. He was kept in the emergency ward in GMCH. When police and Shankar s family reached the hospital next day, they were unable to find him.

Even the hospital management had no idea where had he gone. Police have been searching for Shankar everywhere but failed to do so even as more than a month has passed.

The incident puts a question mark on the security system in GMCH.

KAMAL DEV Vs PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT U T CHANDIGARH AN CWP 7386 of 2001



Nurses unhappy over R 5 allowance quit job

Chandigarh: The nurses of Government Multi College and Hospital (GMCH) 32 hospital are unhappy over the allowance that they are getting on the name of high protein diet.

The nurses of GMCH hospital are getting allowance of just Rs 5 on the name of high protein diet which is somehow forcing them to quit their jobs. In the past two months, around 30 nurses have left their job due to this.

The allowance amount offered by the GMCH hospital to its staff members is comparatively less than that offered by other institutes.

GMCH hospital authorities feel that a nominal amount of Rs 5 is enough for providing high protein diet to its staff members.

The hospital authorities these days is facing severe manpower crunch due to this.

GMCH nurses staff association President Vijay Kumar said, the Chandigarh administration as well as GHCH management should find a way out and try to bring an end to the migration activity.

Bailable warrants issued against GMCH students

Chandigarh A Local court issued bailable warrants against two students of Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector 32, after they failed to appear in court in a case pertaining to abetment to suicide of a fellow student.
Additional District and Sessions judge Raj Rahul Garg on Wednesday issued bailable warrants against Deepak Vashist and Ajay Singh alias Praveen.

The court last month had summoned the duo as accused in the case after father of the deceased student had moved an application.
Jaspreet (21) had committed suicide by hanging himself in the library of the college in 2007.
The police had booked Dr N K Goel, Head of Department of Community Medicine, on charges of abetting suicide after an inquiry found him guilty.
The student had left behind a suicide note blaming the professor, Deepak and Ajay for allegedly passing casteist remarks against him.

Charan Singh, the deceaseds father, who works as an assistant in the Punjab Architecture Department, alleged that doctors at GMCH-32 had deliberately awarded less marks to Jaspreet, which played a vital role in aggravating his depression.
The police, while nailing Goel, had filed a cancellation report saying there was no evidence against Deepak and Ajay, which was challenged by Charan Singh.
The court had then summoned the two students. They were directed to appear before the court today but failed to do so despite serving of summons.


Prisoner locks cop in medical college toilet

Chandigarh: Chaotic scenes prevailed in the city’s Government Medical College Hospital (GMCH-32) when an undertrial prisoner locked a police staff in the toilet in a bid to escape from custody.

Anand Kumar (26), who is under custody of Ambala Police, was admitted to the hospital few days ago. A police constable had been deployed with him as part of the custody.

The incident took place on Friday when Anand asked for going to toilet for a nature call. When the constable Krishna Kumar took him to there, he assaulted him with the handcuffs and locked him inside the toilet before trying to escape.

He had almost eloped before he fall after a female constable Narinder Kaur pushed him after sensing a foul when she saw the culprit running with a handcuff.

Subsequently, he was arrested and handed over to the Ambala Police which took him back.

BHUPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS Versus VANITA AND OTHERS C W P No 10669-CAT of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Date of Decision: January 28, 2011

Bhupinder Kaur and others …Petitioners
Versus
Vanita and others …Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? yes
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 5.1.2010 (P-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) and also seeks quashing of show cause notices dated 19.5.2010 (P-3) issued by the official respondents to the petitioners for termination of their services pursuant to the
direction issued by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.2.2006, the Director Principal, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, issued an advertisement for filling up 40 posts of Staff Nurses on regular basis out of C.W.P. No. 10669-CAT of 2010 (O and M) which one post was reserved for the Schedule Caste Category. Thereafter in August 2006, another advertisement was issued by the Government of India for filling up 114 posts of Staff Nurses in the respondent-College out of which 9 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste category.

The petitioners as well as Ms. Vanita-respondent No. 1 applied for the said posts. It is pertinent to mention that Ms. Vanita belongs to reserved category of Scheduled Caste and she had been working as a Staff Nurse on contract basis in the respondent- College. On 26.11.2006, written test was conducted and thereafter interviews were held. Respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application being OA No. 220/CH/2007 before the Tribunal challenging the criteria adopted in the selection process of staff nurses, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. In December 2007, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners and they joined the service.

3. Respondent No. 1 again filed OA No. 809/CH/07 primarily on the ground that the persons belonging to the General Category, who are lower in merit than her, had been given appointment.

The Tribunal issued notice in the said OA. On 29.2.2008, the official respondents disclosed to the Tribunal that a Committee has been set up by the Director, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, to review and reconsider the recruitment process to the posts of Staff Nurse, which were advertised in the year 2006 and interviews were held on 16/17-1-2007. In that regard a copy of the order dated 22.2.2008, was also placed before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Tribunal disposed of the said OA vide order dated 29.2.2008 with a direction to the respondents to complete the process of review/reconsideration of the selection to the post of Staff Nurses as per law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Tribunal further granted liberty to respondent No. 1 to file a fresh O.A. in case she felt dissatisfied (A-1). She also filed a Contempt Petition No. 56 of 2008 and in response thereto the respondents in their reply stated that a Committee was constituted which found that 25 candidates were wrongly appointed on the post of Staff Nurse. The Tribunal disposed of the Contempt Petition with liberty to respondent No. 1 to challenge the review process and the order passed thereon.

4. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 again filed OA No. 209/PB/2009, inter alia, alleging that the candidates belonging to the General Category, who secured 53 marks were selected and appointed whereas despite the fact that she has secured 55 marks, she has been denied appointment on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. She claimed that if a candidate belonging to reserved category secures higher marks than the candidate belonging to General Category then such a person would not consume a reserved post/vacancy and deserves to be adjusted against a vacancy/post belonging to General category. In that regard reliance was placed on various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court including the judgment rendered in the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1371 and a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jaskaran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) RSJ 510. Respondent No. 1 after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, also placed on record final select lists as Annexure A-3.

5. The Tribunal has categorically observed that the respondents have selected candidates of General Category with lesser marks and denied appointment to the original applicant-respondent No. 1 on the basis of her merit by assessing her candidature only against the reserved vacancies meant for
Scheduled Caste category. It has further been pointed out that 11 Scheduled Caste candidates appointed against reserved vacancies have scored 57 or more marks, whereas 6 candidates selected in the General category have scored only
56 marks who were given berth in the select list. After extracting the observations made by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal’s case (supra) as also observations made by this Court in Jaskaran Singh’s case (supra) and view of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sida Nitinkumar Laxmankumar Laxmanbhai v. Gujarat University, A.I.R. 1991 Gujarat 43, the Tribunal finally disposed of the OA by observing as under:-

The respondents have stated that they have appointed top 86
general category candidates against 86 unreserved vacancies and 11 SC category candidates have been appointed against the vacancies meant for them. This clearly shows that the respondents have deviated from the law/principle settled by the Courts while preparing the Select list. The law is that if a reserved category candidate has been able to make grade in higher merit, he is not to be adjusted against the reserved vacancies, but has to be treated as a general category candidate. It appears that the respondents have considered the merit of all SC category candidates against the vacancies meant for them, notwithstanding the fact that they may have scored more marks than the general category candidates, who
have found place in the panel. This certainly is not the preposition of law enunciated by the courts. In view thereof, the select list prepared by them is arbitrary, against law and deserves to be quashed.

In view of the above, the concerned respondents are directed
to prepare a revised select panel strictly in accordance with law laid down in the aforesaid cases and if it is found that the applicant or other candidate from reserved category has secured more marks than the general category candidates with lower merit but appointed as Staff Nurse than such candidate has to go after giving him/her a show cause notice. In that event, the applicant and other similarly situated Nurses would have the right to be appointed as Staff Nurse from the date other selected candidates have been appointed and they will also be entitled to the benefit of arrears of pay and seniority etc. This exercise must be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ………

6. In pursuance to the above direction, the respondent-College issued show cause notices, dated 19.5.2010 to the petitioners.

The relevant portion of the show cause notice reads thus:-

Now a combined/ranking list was recasted/redrafted by this institute on the basis of selection record available with it for all 410 candidates declared to be eligible for selection of 154 Staff Nurses at that time. According to the new combined merit list, it has been found that this institute has offered the appointment to the General Category candidates upto having a ranking of 53 marks on the plea that appointment on a subsequent vacancy is to be made from the waiting list of the respective category i.e. General, OBC & SC separately, therefore, the following candidates belonging to General Category have been found having to be falling under consideration for the issue of Show Cause Notice without prejudices to their rights and claim due to their falling in the category wise merit list subject to the availability of posts after following the due process of law and ascertaining the recovery/payment of bond money as may be
applicable as per terms of your appointment as well as the service rules as per affidavit filled by this institute dated 16.7.08.
You are therefore called upon as to show cause notice why
your services may not be terminated.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.1.2010 (P-2) passed by the Tribunal and the show cause notice dated 19.5.2010 (P-3) alleging that the advertisements were issued in the year 2006 and appointments were made in the year 2007, whereas the original applicantrespondent No. 1 filed the original application after a period of 2½ years, which is beyond the period of limitation to approach the Tribunal. Moreover, no candidate other than respondent No. 1 has approached the Tribunal and once they were not vigilant and slept over their rights, the Tribunal cannot grant relief to such candidates by directing the official respondents to recast the entire select list. The petitioners have also claimed that they have successfully completed their probation period of two years. It has also been submitted that all the petitioners have already crossed the age of 25 years, which is the maximum age prescribed for appointment to the respondent-College. Some of them have become overage and cannot apply in other institutions. It is not a case of concealment or misrepresentation on their part, thus, they cannot be punished for no fault. It has further been pointed out that as on 29.3.2010, 47 regular posts of Staff Nurses were lying vacant and thereafter no selection has taken place.

Thus, the petitioners can be adjusted against those vacant posts. In that regard, reliance has been placed on various judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 10345 of 2007, decided on 18.2.2009; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 7062 of 2003, decided on 1.7.2004); Atul v. State of Haryana and another (CWP No. 7302 of 2001, decided on 19.2.2003).

8. On 28.5.2010, while issuing notice of motion, this Court passed an interim order directing that the petitioners may file their replies to the show cause notice but their services were not to be dispensed with. On 7.9.2010, when the matter came up for hearing, we heard the arguments at some length and noticed some aspects as under:-

We have heard arguments at some length and found that the petitioners had approached this Court at the stage when the show cause notice issued to them is pending before the authority.

Petitioners have filed their reply and other candidates belonging to reserved category who are meritorious than the petitioners have not yet been located to implement the directions issued by the Tribunal.

The respondents are yet to undertake an exercise to find out how many meritorious candidates belonging to reserved category are available. The show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners without undertaking any such exercise.

The result could be that meritorious reserved category candidates might not be available and all of the petitioners may not require to be removed from service.

Mr. Puneet Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 states that every effort shall be made to complete this exercise
within four weeks and an affidavit to that effect shall be filed.

Accordingly, hearing is deferred to 11.10.2010.

9. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.M. No. 15468 of 2010, seeking clarification of the order dated 7.9.2010 and for further issuance of directions to the respondents not to seek consent and appointment to Other Backward Class candidates and to keep 10 posts of Staff Nurses vacant in the respondent College.

It has been submitted in the said application that a public notice dated 26.9.2010 was issued by the respondents seeking consent for appointment of the Scheduled Castes category persons who had more marks than the petitioners. In pursuance to the said public notice only three persons gave their consent who have secured more marks than the petitioners and interested to join. The petitioners have also placed on record another public notice dated 24.10.2010 issued by the respondents seeking consent for appointment, in preference to the petitioners, from candidates belonging to the Other Backward Class category (P- 7).

10. The Director-Principal, GMCH, also filed an affidavit dated
9.11.2010. A combined list of all the 410 candidates, which was prepared on the basis of marks secured by the candidates after interview, has also been placed on record as Annexure A-1 with the said affidavit. A perusal of various paras of the affidavit reveals that there have been drastic changes in the merit list after carrying out the reshuffling in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal. In para 2 of the affidavit bifurcation of the total 154 posts of Staff Nurses, which were advertised in the year 2006, has been given, which is as under:

Seats No. of seats General (unreserved) 86 OBC 57 SC 11 Total 154

11. In para 7 of the affidavit it has been stated that a total of 27 seats are to be allocated in General category to the candidates belonging to reserved category on the basis of their higher merit than the General category candidates.

Accordingly, services of 27 General category candidates would be required to be terminated due to their low merit. However, in para 8 it has further been disclosed that out of these 27 General category candidates, 13 candidates either have resigned or their services have already been terminated. Thus, at present
there are only 14 candidates whose services are required to be dispensed with.

Out of these 14, show cause notices to 12 candidates have already been issued and after carrying out the said exercise, show cause notices to remaining two candidates, namely Mr. Jaswant singh Shekhawat and Ms. Anu Bala Francis are being issued. Further, Ms. Harpreet Kaur-petitioner No. 11, who belongs to General Category with a score of 53 marks was given appointment, has resigned from service w.e.f. 3.9.2010, which has been accepted. As per para 9 of the affidavit, after final assessment 12 candidates are required to be removed from service. Para 11 of the affidavit discloses the details of 10 candidates from Scheduled Caste category who would consume the posts in General Category, whereas para 12 contains the names of 11 Scheduled Caste candidates who would be considered under SC quota. The name of the original applicantrespondent No. 1 figures at Sr. No. 8 of the table given in para 12 of the affidavit. A bare perusal of para 15 shows that out of 17 Scheduled Caste category candidates, whose consent was sought, 7 have consented; 2 have refused to join; and remaining 8 have not responded as yet. The seats of those
candidates who have been issued consent letters and not responded would be offered to the candidates next in merit.

12. In so far as candidates belonging to the OBC category are
concerned, 17 candidates have marched over to the General Category posts (A- 9) and rest of the 57 OBC candidates are placed in order of their merit against the seats meant for OBC category (A-10). Out of 57 OBC posts, appointment letters to 39 candidates were already correctly issued under the previous list.

Now 18 candidates have been issued consent letters dated 23.10.2010 and a public notice has also been issued (A-7 and A-8). Consent from 9 OBC candidates has already been received and from the remaining 9 it is awaited. In para 19 of the affidavit it has been stated that the respondents are in the process of issuing appointment letter to the original applicant-respondent No. 1.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and are of the view that the directions issued by the Tribunal are unassailable. It is well settled that a candidate belonging to reserved category who has been selected and appointed on his own merit by securing higher merit than the merit of a General Category candidate would not be considered to be appointed against the post/vacancy reserved for a candidate belonging to reserved category. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul (Dr.), (1996) 3 SCC 253. The aforesaid case belongs to admission to a professional college and the observation made by their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court would be equally applicable to the present case which read as under:

There is sufficient force in the contention of the petitioner. A student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category.

But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but in computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate.

14. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2005) 9 SCC 742 and Yoganand Vishwasrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 12 SCC 311. In these two cases also the same principle has been applied and followed.

The law on the subject, therefore, is that a candidate belonging to reserved category securing better merit position than those of General category would consume a General category point because reservation has been made for the reserved category candidate and not for the General category candidate. The respondent-College, in fact, has taken the view as if the reservation between the General category candidates and reserved category candidates has been made in two watertight compartments, which is wholly illegal. On the direction issued
by the Tribunal, an exercise was undertaken which revealed that a number of meritorious reserved category candidates were refused appointments on the post of Staff Nurses, whereas the less meritorious candidates belonging to General category were given appointments. By virtue of interlocutory order passed by
us on 07.09.2010, we required the authorities to go into the question of availability of meritorious reserved category candidates. It would be futile to remove the General category candidates in the absence of availability of reserved category candidates to occupy the post on their own merit. The respondent- College has undertaken an exercise in the right earnest and some meritorious candidates belonging to reserved category have come forward to join which would necessitate replacement of General category candidates by such meritorious reserved category candidates.

15. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Original Application was filed only by one candidate belonging to reserved category and there could not be a direction issued by the Tribunal to recast the whole list. We find no merit in the aforesaid submission because once a patent
illegality has come to the notice of the Tribunal or any other Court then it is a duty cast on the Courts to ensure compliance with the law rather than permitting the illegality to perpetuate.

Moreover, law declared by Hon’ble the Supreme Court is binding on all the authorities including the State and it must enforce the directions effectively. The Constitution mandates the State to ensure enforcement of order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and any attempt to bye-pass the directions so issued is viewed with seriousness. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have confined the relief of recasting the merit list as per law
only in respect of respondent No. 1. It has to be undertaken in respect of all those meritorious candidates belonging to reserved category who have secured more marks than the last candidate belonging to General category, even though it results into relieving of some candidates belonging to General category. Thus, we find no merit in the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

16. We hope and trust that the respondent-College would not commit similar mistake in future and would keep the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in view of the judgment like Ritesh R. Sah’s case (supra), Anurag Patel’s case (supra) and Yoganand Vishwasrao Patil’s case (supra).

17. Subject to the aforesaid observations, we find no merit in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE

Court absolves two GMCH students of abetment charge



RAM SWARUP VERMA JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMN ) GOVT MU Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS LPA 1796 of 2010

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Date of Decision : 22.12.2010

Ram Swarup Verma, Joint Director (Admn.),Government Municipal
College, Sector 32, Chandigarh (UT) now Additional Labour Commissioner, (Admin) Haryana and others .......... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

Present :
Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is directed against the view taken by the learned Single Judge while disposing of a bunch of writ petitions, including CWP No. 9712 of 2007 on 03.08.2010. The writ petitioner-respondents have challenged the seniority list and the order dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-1).

The appellants were appointed to Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) in a special drive for recruitment in the year 1994.

The private respondents are the beneficiary of litigation initiated by
them claiming that they were entitled to appointment against the
additional vacancies which became available in 1992 till the date of interview because they had competed for the direct quota nine posts advertised. Hon’ble the Supreme Court accepted their prayer and held in para 5 of the judgment rendered in the case of Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 696, as under:

5. Therefore, we have no hesitation in directing the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants for appointment to posts of Haryana Public Service (Executive Branch). However, it is made clear that the appellants shall be fitted to the post ranking below to
those who had been selected along with the appellants at the time of recruitment made pursuant to result declared on June 19, 1992.

The appellants will be fitted in appropriate posts and they will accord appropriate scale of pay by giving them the benefit of increments, if any, but they will not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period for which they have been kept out of employment.

Let such action be taken by the Government expeditiously but not later than a period of three months.

In compliance of the directions issued by their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the private respondents were placed
at the tail end of the list of nine candidates who had been appointed against nine advertised posts. It is, thus, obvious that their order of merit has determined by the Punjab Public Service Commission was kept intact. In order to seek clarification regarding directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda’s case (supra), the appellants filed an application which was disposed of vide order dated 1.5.2006 with the following observations:

No clarification of our judgement is called for. In case, the applicants are aggrieved by the seniority list, it will be for them to challenge in accordance with law, which aspect will be decided on its own merits. The application is disposed of accordingly.

It seems that the State of Haryana circulated seniority list where the petitioners were shown below those private respondents who were beneficiary of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda’s case (supra). Before finalising the seniority list, the respondent State circulated tentative
seniority list and invited objections. The objections filed by the
appellants along with a number of objectors were rejected vide order dated 13.12.2006 (P-1). Thereafter, the appellants challenged order dated 13.12.2006 as well as placing of names of private respondents, who were beneficiary of the judgment in Virender S. Hodda’s case (supra), by granting them seniority over and above the appellants.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition namely CWP No. 9712 of 2007 holding that once the private respondents have been appointed on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virender S. Hooda (supra) and further directions issued to place them below / at the tail-end of those 9 persons appointed in the year 1992 along with the benefit of refixation without payment of back wages then it was not possible to apply Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').

Mr. Arun Palli, learned senior counsel, has argued that directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda case (supra) have been completely diluted when the appellants filed a clarificatory application and on 1.5.2006 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has passed an order giving liberty to the appellants that if they are aggrieved by their placement in the seniority list then it
would be open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law and the same was to be decided on its own merit. Accordingly the appellants challenged the seniority given to those respondents who have succeeded before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda case (supra).

The arguments raised by Mr. Arun Palli, learned senior counsel necessarily is based on Rule 20 of the Rules and he has argued that the date of appointment is the relevant date for the purpose of fixing seniority. According to the learned senior counsel the respondents were appointed in the year 1999, 2004 and 2005 and
they were so appointed much after the appellants who had been
appointed in May 1994 to Haryana Civil Services (E.B.). The
arguments seems to be that the directions issued by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda case ( supra) or subsequent
order can not be construed to have determined their seniority and
also that the mandate of the Rule 20 were not wiped out by any of
the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court particularly
when such matter was raised there. According to the learned senior counsel, the rigour of Rule 20 of the Rules must be followed in case of the appellants particularly when there was no argument raised with regard to Rule 20 which prescribed the date of appointment as the relevant date for the purpose of determining seniority.

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that once Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted relief to the private respondents, directing the respondents-State to consider their cases for appointment against the vacancies of the year 1992 freezing the date of vacancy which have arisen by the date of interview then there is no escape from the conclusion that they are
deemed to be appointed in the year 1992. The direction further go to show that those private respondents ‘were to be fitted to the post ranking below those’ who had been selected along with the
appellants at the time of recruitment made pursuant to the result
declared in June 1992. The appellants will be fitted in appropriate
posts and they will be accorded appropriate scale of pay by giving
them benefit of increments, if any, but they will not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period for which they have been kept out of employment.

On the aforesaid premise it can only be construed that by fiction of law the date of appointment of the private respondents has to be taken as 1992 and they are to rank below those who were appointed against 9 advertised posts. In any case, they would be
placed below those 9 persons, who had in order of merit acquired
superior position than those private respondents. Therefore, the
subsequent order passed by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 1.5.2006 would not have the effect of wiping out the directions issued in Virender S. Hooda case (supra) on the basis of which the private respondents were given appointment with a further direction to the respondents to appoint them against the vacancies of the year 1992 and they were to be fitted to the post ranking below those who had been selected along with them.

Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has decided the controversy in the correct perspective. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE

RAM SWARUP VERMA JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMN ) GOVT MU Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS LPA 1796 of 2010

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Date of Decision : 22.12.2010

Ram Swarup Verma, Joint Director (Admn.),Government Municipal
College, Sector 32, Chandigarh (UT) now Additional Labour Commissioner, (Admin) Haryana and others .......... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

Present :
Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is directed against the view taken by the learned Single Judge while disposing of a bunch of writ petitions, including CWP No. 9712 of 2007 on 03.08.2010. The writ petitioner-respondents have challenged the seniority list and the order dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-1).

The appellants were appointed to Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) in a special drive for recruitment in the year 1994.

The private respondents are the beneficiary of litigation initiated by
them claiming that they were entitled to appointment against the
additional vacancies which became available in 1992 till the date of interview because they had competed for the direct quota nine posts advertised. Hon’ble the Supreme Court accepted their prayer and held in para 5 of the judgment rendered in the case of Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 696, as under:

5. Therefore, we have no hesitation in directing the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants for appointment to posts of Haryana Public Service (Executive Branch). However, it is made clear that the appellants shall be fitted to the post ranking below to
those who had been selected along with the appellants at the time of recruitment made pursuant to result declared on June 19, 1992.

The appellants will be fitted in appropriate posts and they will accord appropriate scale of pay by giving them the benefit of increments, if any, but they will not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period for which they have been kept out of employment.

Let such action be taken by the Government expeditiously but not later than a period of three months.

In compliance of the directions issued by their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the private respondents were placed
at the tail end of the list of nine candidates who had been appointed against nine advertised posts. It is, thus, obvious that their order of merit has determined by the Punjab Public Service Commission was kept intact. In order to seek clarification regarding directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda’s case (supra), the appellants filed an application which was disposed of vide order dated 1.5.2006 with the following observations:

No clarification of our judgement is called for. In case, the applicants are aggrieved by the seniority list, it will be for them to challenge in accordance with law, which aspect will be decided on its own merits. The application is disposed of accordingly.

It seems that the State of Haryana circulated seniority list where the petitioners were shown below those private respondents who were beneficiary of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda’s case (supra). Before finalising the seniority list, the respondent State circulated tentative
seniority list and invited objections. The objections filed by the
appellants along with a number of objectors were rejected vide order dated 13.12.2006 (P-1). Thereafter, the appellants challenged order dated 13.12.2006 as well as placing of names of private respondents, who were beneficiary of the judgment in Virender S. Hodda’s case (supra), by granting them seniority over and above the appellants.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition namely CWP No. 9712 of 2007 holding that once the private respondents have been appointed on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virender S. Hooda (supra) and further directions issued to place them below / at the tail-end of those 9 persons appointed in the year 1992 along with the benefit of refixation without payment of back wages then it was not possible to apply Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').

Mr. Arun Palli, learned senior counsel, has argued that directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda case (supra) have been completely diluted when the appellants filed a clarificatory application and on 1.5.2006 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has passed an order giving liberty to the appellants that if they are aggrieved by their placement in the seniority list then it
would be open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law and the same was to be decided on its own merit. Accordingly the appellants challenged the seniority given to those respondents who have succeeded before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda case (supra).

The arguments raised by Mr. Arun Palli, learned senior counsel necessarily is based on Rule 20 of the Rules and he has argued that the date of appointment is the relevant date for the purpose of fixing seniority. According to the learned senior counsel the respondents were appointed in the year 1999, 2004 and 2005 and
they were so appointed much after the appellants who had been
appointed in May 1994 to Haryana Civil Services (E.B.). The
arguments seems to be that the directions issued by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda case ( supra) or subsequent
order can not be construed to have determined their seniority and
also that the mandate of the Rule 20 were not wiped out by any of
the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court particularly
when such matter was raised there. According to the learned senior counsel, the rigour of Rule 20 of the Rules must be followed in case of the appellants particularly when there was no argument raised with regard to Rule 20 which prescribed the date of appointment as the relevant date for the purpose of determining seniority.

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that once Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted relief to the private respondents, directing the respondents-State to consider their cases for appointment against the vacancies of the year 1992 freezing the date of vacancy which have arisen by the date of interview then there is no escape from the conclusion that they are
deemed to be appointed in the year 1992. The direction further go to show that those private respondents ‘were to be fitted to the post ranking below those’ who had been selected along with the
appellants at the time of recruitment made pursuant to the result
declared in June 1992. The appellants will be fitted in appropriate
posts and they will be accorded appropriate scale of pay by giving
them benefit of increments, if any, but they will not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period for which they have been kept out of employment.

On the aforesaid premise it can only be construed that by fiction of law the date of appointment of the private respondents has to be taken as 1992 and they are to rank below those who were appointed against 9 advertised posts. In any case, they would be
placed below those 9 persons, who had in order of merit acquired
superior position than those private respondents. Therefore, the
subsequent order passed by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 1.5.2006 would not have the effect of wiping out the directions issued in Virender S. Hooda case (supra) on the basis of which the private respondents were given appointment with a further direction to the respondents to appoint them against the vacancies of the year 1992 and they were to be fitted to the post ranking below those who had been selected along with them.

Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has decided the controversy in the correct perspective. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE

DR ALKA SEHGAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CWP 20391 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision 21.12.2010

Dr. Alka Sehgal -----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ---Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6.
Ms. Rita Kohli, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The instant petition is directed against interlocutory order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has vacated the stay order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). The matter is posted for hearing before the Tribunal on 05.01.2011.

2. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that she would not press for any other relief in the
instant petition and would confine her prayer to only one relief,
namely, that respondent No.6, who is the Director, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh should not write
her ACR till the disposal of the original application, pending before
the Tribunal. According to learned counsel, the written replies by
respondents are awaited and if the replies are filed before the date
of hearing i.e. 05.01.2011, then the Tribunal may be able to dispose of the controversy on the date fixed. Defer

3. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned counsel for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 has submitted that ACR of the petitioner could be written only if she sends self-appraisal report and despite letter written by respondent No. 6, the self-appraisal report has not been sent, therefore, he states that respondent No.6 would not write the
ACR of the petitioner till the disposal of the original application. Mr. Kaushal, further states that the respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 shall file their reply before the Tribunal on 03.01.2011 with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. I.S. Sidhu and Ms. Rita Kohali, learned counsels for respondents No. 2 and 5 have also made the same statements with regard to filing of written reply before the Tribunal.

4. We dispose of the petition in view of the assurance given by the learned counsel for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 that the writing of ACR shall defer till the disposal of the original application. The Tribunal shall make effort to dispose of the original application on
05.1.2011. However, if on account of some difficulties, the Tribunal could not dispose of the original application on 05.01.2011 then the application shall be disposed of within the month of January, 2011.

5. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Bench Secretary today itself
and also sent to the Tribunal.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE

ARUN GOYAL Versus DR AC VAID PRINCIPAL GOSWAMI GANESH DUTTA SANA Civil Writ Petition N o. 14853 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 08.11.2010

Arun Goyal ...Petitioner
Versus
Dr. A.C. Vaid, Principal Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College, Chandigarh, Sector-32, Chandigarh and others
...Respondents

CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr. H.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH J.

Counsel for the petitioner points out that the present writ petition is rendered infructuous as the prayer made in the writ petition has been granted. The petitioner has been granted regular admission in B.A. 3rd year without insisting his admission in the hostel.The writ petition is disposed of as rendered infructuous.The College may take some remedial measures and should not insist on unnecessary conditions for grant of admission which would not pass the test of being legal.
(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

GMCH NURSES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER Vs CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CWP No.18972 of 2009

Date of decision :December 9, 2009

GMCH Nurses Welfare Association and another .......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal and others ...........Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

Present:
Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral).
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 5.10.2009, whereby the Original Application challenging the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh (Group `C Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 (for short `the Rules) to the extent that Degree Holder staff nurse with five years experience were made eligible for appointment to the post of Nursing Sister, was dismissed.

The petitioners have challenged the said condition in Rules on the ground that prior to the promulgation of such Rules, the post of Nursing Sister in the Government Medical College, Chandigarh was governed by Punjab Medical and Health Department, Nursing Superintendent, Matrons, Sisters Tutors, Public Health Nurse and Nursing Sisters Public Health Nurses, Staff Nurses and Male Nurses (State Service Class III) Rules, 1964 (for short `Punjab Rules) and that Nursing sisters could be appointed on the basis of diploma with five years experience. It is contended by the petitioners that since at the
time of obtaining qualification of diploma, the Punjab Rules were applicable, therefore Chandigarh Administration is not competent to frame Rules against the interest of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon H.L Trehan and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 568 and BCPP Mazdoor Sangh and another vs. N.T.P.C and others, AIR 2008 SC 336 to contend that promulgation of Rules without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Rules have been framed by Chandigarh Administration in exercise of the powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such Rules have been framed in exercise of its legislative functions. The question whether any opportunity of hearing is required to be given while exercising legislative functions or in exercise of delegatory legislations is not res-integra.

Sir William Wade in his book `Administrative Law Eighth Edition page 864, has written to the following effect:-

Let me accept that in the sphere of the so-called quasi-judicial the rules of natural justice run, and that in the administrative or executive field there is a general duty of fairness. Nevertheless, these considerations do not seem to me to affect the process of legislation, whether primary or delegated. Many of those affected by delegated legislation, and affected very substantially, are never consulted in the process of enacting that legislation; and yet they have no remedy.....I do not know of any implied right to be consulted or make objections, or any principle upon which the courts may enjoin the legislative process at the suit of those who contend that insufficient time
for consultation and consideration has been given.

Since it was plain that the proposed order was legislative rather than executive, there was no room for the principle that persons affected must be given a fair hearing.

The Supreme Court in R.K Porwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1127, while considering the question of establishment of market yard under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act (20 of 1964) held that it is a legislative function and does not require compliance of the Rules of natural justice.

........It was said that even as there was express provision for inviting and hearing objections before a market area was declared under the Act, so should objections be invited and heard before a `market yard was established at any particular place. The principles of natural justice demanded it. We are unable to agree. We are here not concerned with the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function where the very nature of the function involves the application of the rules of natural justice, or of an administrative function affecting the rights of persons, wherefore, a duty to act fairly. We are concerned with legislative activity; we are concerned with the making of a
legislative instrument, the declaration by notification of the Government that a certain place shall be a principal market yard for a market area, upon which declaration certain statutory provisions at once spring into action and certain consequences prescribed by statute follow forthwith. The making of the declaration, in the context, is certainly an act legislative in character and does not oblige the observance of the rule of natural justice. In Bates v. Lord Hailsham, (1972) 1 WLR 1373, Megarry, J. pointed out that the rules of natural justice do not run in the sphere of legislation, primary or delegated, and in Tulsipur Sugar Co. v. Notified Area Committee, (1980) 2 SCR 1111: ( AIR 1980 SC 882), our brothers Desai and Venkataramaiah, JJ., approved what was said by Megarry, J., and applied it to the field of conditional legislation too. In Paul Jacksons Natural justice (Second Edn.), it has been pointed
out In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and others etc. vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 515, Honble Supreme Court delineated the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be questioned. It was held to the following effect:

73. A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is
made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary.

75. In India arbitrariness is not a separate ground since it will come within the embargo of Article 14 of the Constitution. In India any enquiry into the vires of delegated legislation must be confined to the grounds on which plenary legislation may be questioned, to the ground that it is contrary to the statute under
which it is made, to the ground that it is contrary to other statutory provisions or that it is so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

76. That subordinate legislation cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice on which administrative action may be questioned has been held in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, 543 (1980) 2 SCR 1111 : (AIR 1980 SC 882) : Rameshchandra
Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCR 866: (AIR 1981 SC 1127) and in Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. (1972) 1 WLR 1373.

In Union of India and another vs. Cynamide India Ltd. And another, AIR 1987 SC 1802, the Court held to the following
effect:

5. The second observation we wish to make is, legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice. In the case of Parliamentary legislation, the proposition is selfevident.

In the case of subordinate legislation, it may happen that Parliament may itself provide for a notice and for a hearing there are several instances of the legislature requiring the subordinate legislating authority to give public notice and a public hearing before say, for example, levying a municipal rate -, in which case the substantial non-observance of the statutorily prescribed mode of observing natural justice may have the effect of invalidating the subordinate legislation. The right here given to rate payers or others is in the nature of a concession which is not to detract from the character of the activity as legislative and not quasi-judicial. But, where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it will not be permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity.

6. Occasionally, the legislature directs the subordinate legislating body to make such enquiry as it thinks fit before making the subordinate legislation. In such a situation, while such enquiry by the subordinate legislating body as it deems fit is a condition precedent to the subordinate legislation, the nature and the extent of the enquiry is in the discretion of the
subordinate legislating body and the subordinate legislation is not open to question on the ground that the enquiry was not as full as it might have been. The provision for such enquiry as it thinks fit is generally on enabling provision, intended to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant
information from all and whatever source and not intended to vest any right in anyone other than the subordinate-legislating body. It is the sort of enquiry which the legislature itself may cause to be made before legislating, an enquiry which will not confer any right on anyone.

In M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held to the following effect:

36. A statutory instrument (such as rule, order or regulation) emanates from the exercise of delegated legislative power which is the part of the administrative process resembling enactment of law by the legislature. A quasi-judicial order emanates from adjudication which is the part of the administrative process resembling a judicial decision by a court of law. This analogy is imperfect and perhaps unhelpful in classifying borderline or mixed cases which are better left unclassified.

37.If a particular function is termed legislative rather than judicial, practical results may follow as far as the parties are concerned. When the function is treated as legislative, a party affected by the order has no right to notice and hearing, unless of course, the statute so requires. It being of general application engulfing a wide sweep of powers, applicable to all persons and situations of a broadly identifiable class, the legislative order may not be vulnerable to challenge merely by reason of its
omission to take into account individual peculiarities and differences amongst those falling within the class.

Lastly in J.K Industries Limited and another vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 13 SCC 679, it was held that subordinate legislation cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice on which administrative action may be questioned. A distinction must, however, be made between delegation of legislative function in which case question of reasonableness cannot be gone into and the investment by the statute to exercise a particular discretionary power, while reiterating the earlier view of Supreme Court in Indian Express Newspapers case (supra).

Since the Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred upon administration under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, such Rules promulgated in its power of delegated legislation cannot be questioned on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners.

The members of the petitioner-Union have no vested right to seek appointment on the basis of Diploma in Nursing. The Rule
making authority has the jurisdiction and liberty to frame Rules which are considered necessary and appropriate. The fact that under the Punjab Rules the Diploma Holder with five years experience was eligible for appointment as Nursing Sister does not preclude the Chandigarh Administration to frame Rules to the contrary in exercise of its delegated legislative powers.

There was no promise by the Chandigarh Administration that the Members of the petitioner-Union shall be appointed on the
basis of qualification of Diploma in Nursing. It is for the employer to spell out eligibility conditions for a post. The fact that the members of petitioner-Union are Diploma Holders does not confer any right to seek appointment under the Administration on the basis of such qualification nor Rule of estoppel can be applied against the administration from prescribing higher qualifications for the post as the post of Nursing Sister is higher post than the post of Staff Nurse. It is
reasonable for the Administration to fix minimum qualification of
Degree for appointment to the post of Nursing Sister. It may be noticed that there is a quota for promotion from the post of Staff Nurse to the post of Nursing Sisters. Therefore, a Diploma holder Staff Nurse can seek promotion to the post of Nursing Sister but the petitioners cannot be permitted to impugn the Rules prescribing higher qualification of Degree for the purpose of direct appointment to the post of Nursing Sister.

The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Both the judgments do not deal with the framing of the Rules in exercise of delegated legislative powers. Therefore, such judgments are of no help to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

[ HEMANT GUPTA ]
JUDGE

[ JORA SINGH ]
JUDGE

GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL SECTOR 32VsSANDEEP MASIH AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 5777 of 2009

Date of decision October 27, 2009

Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
....... Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Masih and others. ........ Respondents

CWP No. 5785 of 2009

Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
....... Petitioner
Versus
Yogesh Puri and others. ........ Respondents

CWP No. 5792 of 2009

Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
....... Petitioner
Versus
Vivek Sharma and others. ........ Respondents

CWP No. 5796 of 2009

Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
....... Petitioner
Versus
Kamalpreet Singh and others. ........ Respondents

CWP No. 5798 of 2009
Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
....... Petitioner
Versus
Sudhir Saini and others. ........ Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:-
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. In challenge before this Court is the order passed by the Labour Court in terms of which the defence was struck off for the failure of writ petitioners to file statement on the day when it was posted.

The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the statement had been made ready but could not be approved by the competent authority and hence it could not be filed. Though the decision to allow for time is essentially a matter of discretion, in the interest of justice the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to enter the defence on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.1,000/- as costs in each of the cases to respondent Nos.

1 and 2 on or before 30.11.2009 failing which the order passed already by the Labour Court shall stand confirmed. On receipt of the statement and on payment of costs as directed, the Labour Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

2. Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 2.12.2009.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE

Not happy with transfer, teacher commits suicide

A computer teacher of a government school in a village in Moga allegedly committed suicide in the office of the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan project in Sector 34 on Tuesday afternoon.
She was rushed to the Sector-32 Government Medical College and Hospital, where she died later in the day.
Sanjana Devi, 34, consumed celphos tablets inside the office of Krishan Kumar, director general of the Punjab Education Board and project director of Sarv Sikhsha Abhiyan, where she had come with a request to roll back her transfer orders issued last week.

Sanjana was recently transferred from the Government Model Senior Secondary School in Baghpurana, Moga, the government school in Lingyana Khurd village after some complaints were received against her.
It was alleged that she was unprofessional and disturbed the atmosphere of the school. Sanjana had also filed complaints against the school authorities and teachers, accusing them of indulging in corruption.
Kumar said she was transferred to a school, which is 5 km away from her previous school, and that she had visited his office twice earlier to seek suspension of her transfer orders.

She took the extreme step when section officer Harjeet Kaur were present in the office.
After she consumed the celphos tablets, the staff immediately informed the police, which rushed her to the hospital.
According to Harjeet Kaur, Sanjana was sitting in the lobby when she asked for a glass of water from the peon and consumed the tablets. After a while she vomitted.

Though Sanjana was declared unfit to give a statement to the police, she was reportedly heard saying that she was being harassed in the pretext of the ongoing inquiry against her.
The victim was mired in controversies. Audio CDs of objectionable conversation between her and assistant manager Baldev Raj were submitted to the director as evidence in the inquiry against her.
Baldev Raj was sacked a few days ago, as he was not following rules and regulations, Kumar said.
A three-member committee was formed to look into the inquiry against Sanjana, which had recommended her transfer.
The transfer order was first issued one-and-a-half-year ago, but she had managed to delay it because of her alleged proximity with Baldev Raj.

After Baldev Raj was suspended, she was transferred.
The police said earlier a case of attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 of the IPC was registered against her.



ANISH SHARMA Vs UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ETC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CASE NO.: CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003

DATE OF DECISION: April 29, 2009

ANISH SHARMA ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ETC. ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.

PRESENT:
MR. I.S. SIDHU, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. GURINDERJIT SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3.
MR. T.P.S. CHAWLA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 23.5.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Briefly the facts of the case are that in pursuance to advertisement (Annexure A-3), issued by the Director Principal, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh the petitioner Anish Sharma as well as respondent No.4 Mamta Sharma alongwith others applied for the post of Telephone Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/-.

The eligible candidates were interviewed by a Selection Committee and on their
recommendation respondent No.4 Mamta Sharma was appointed as Telephone Operator vide order dated 6.8.2002. She joined her duties thereafter and has been working since then. The petitioner filed petition before the Tribunal for quashing the appointment of Mamta Sharma on the ground that one of the Members of the Selection Committee, namely, Sh.Arun Sharma, respondent No.3, Incharge Communication, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh was the brother-in-law of
respondent No.4 and his presence as a Member of the Selection Committee at the time of interview shows that there was likelihood of bias. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454.

Separate replies on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 were filed before the Tribunal. In the reply filed by Sh.Arun Sharma, respondent No.3, it was averred that although he was one of the Members of the Selection Committee, but he did not take part in the interview process at the time when respondent No.4 appeared for interview and hence the selection process cannot be faulted. It has also been averred
that the selection was absolutely fair and impartial.

Apart from the above, it has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that the interview was conducted by the Selection Committee which was chaired by the Director/Principal, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh and the Joint Director as well as two senior Doctors of the same College/Hospital who were part of the Selection Committee. It is highly unlikely and improbable that respondent No.3 who is merely Incharge Communication in the Government Medical College and Hospital,, Sector 32, Chandigarh would have such a huge impact on the selection process so as to hoodwink or win-over all other four Members who were much superior to him in rank and status. It was further averred that respondent No.4 has been selected after due consideration of her merit by the Selection Committee which did not include Sh.Arun Sharma, respondent No.3.

It was also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 did not fulfill the requisite experience of having worked on at least 20 x 220 lines in a reputed Government organization for one year and further that the experience certificate issued by M/s Sanchi Security Private Ltd., respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.4 is fake.

In reply to this averment it has been averred in the written statement that experience certificate issued to respondent No.4 and the petitioner has been issued by the same Company, i.e. respondent No.5 which is an agency through which both the petitioner and the answering respondent were appointed on contractual basis. It was also submitted that respondent No.4 is possessing certificate of Telephone Operator-cumReceptionist (Vocational Course) issued by the Hindustan Marine Electronic Institute based in Ludhiana. The certificate is duly recognized by the State of Punjab for the purpose of appointing persons to the posts of Telephone Operator etc. It is thus argued that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent no.4 possessed the requisite qualification.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the aforementioned fact shows that although Sh. Arun Sharma, respondent No.3 was brother-in-law of respondent No.4, but he had excused himself when respondent No.4 was called for interview. In the present case, there is no positive averment that respondent No.3 Sh. Arun Sharma had in any manner espoused the case of respondent No.4 and helped her in getting selected. Although respondent No.3 was one of the Members of the Selection Committee, but was merely Incharge Communication in the
Government Medical College and Hospital. All the 4 other Members of the Committee were highly superior in rank and status than respondent No.3.

There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent No.3 had influence on the senior Members of the Selection Committee to such an extent that he could have got respondent No.4 selected. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No.4 was not appointed to the post of Telephone Operator because of any favourtism on the part of respondent No.3, but on her own merit.

Regarding the second point raised by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 did not have the requisite experience of having worked on at least 20 x 200 lines in a reputed firm or in a Government Organization for one year, we find no merit in the same also.

A perusal of the experience certificate (Annexure A-4) issued in favour of respondent No.4 shows that Smt. Mamta Sharma has worked as EPABX Operator (24 x 240 lines) on Model P-30 (BPL) in Sanchi Security Private Ltd. from 16.12.1999 till the date of certificate, i.e. 8.5.2002 on contractual basis. The certificate itself makes it clear that respondent No.4 did have the requisite experience. The capacity of the aforementioned Exchange has been stated to be 64 x 750 lines and thus, respondent No.4 did have the
experience as mentioned in the advertisement.

Apart from the above, in Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, JT 1995(2) SC 291, it has been held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears in an interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and contend that process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, the petitioner having taken part in the selection process for the post of Telephone Operator and
having failed to make the grade, cannot question the legality of the selection process which in our considered opinion is just and fair. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
JUDGE

DR NEELU ARORA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CWP 11543 of 2008 (O and M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 19.8.2008.

Dr.Neelu Arora ..........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and another. ..........Respondents.

CORAM:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.

Present:
Mr.Kapil Kakkar,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.KS Dadwal,Addl.Advocate General, Punjab for the official respondents.

JASWANT SINGH,J..
Petitioner obtained her MBBS degree in the year 1994, and thereafter, Post Graduate Diploma in Anaesthesia. On recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, Government of Punjab vide order dated 22.2.1999 appointed her as Medical Officer (PCMS Class-1). Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short PGI), vide its admission notice no.70/2005 dated 20.3.2005 invited applications for admission to Post Graduate Course in various subjects including one seat for admission in Master in Hospital Administration, reserved only for sponsored/deputed candidate belonging to PCMS Doctors.

Petitioner being eligible for admission against the said seat, applied for the same. No Objection Certificate was granted to her by her employer i.e. Government of Punjab vide letter dated 8.6.2005 (Annexure P/5), alongwith a sponsor certificate of even date, which provided that she would, on completion of her training course, work for at least five years with the Punjab Government. After successfully passing examination in May 2007, of the said course, she joined back with her employer- respondents on 2.7.2007.

Thereafter, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32-B,
Chandigarh issued an advertisement for appointment of doctors as Senior Residents in the pay scale of Rs.10940-11650. The petitioner being eligible applied, was selected and offered appointment in the Department of Hospital Administration vide order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure P/9), subject to production of No Objection Certificate from present employer before joining. The request of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificatewas declined by the respondent- Government of Punjab vide order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P/12). Hence the present writ petition praying for quashing the order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P/12). It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the months of October 2007 to December 2007; February 2008 and May/June
2008, as she was not paid salary by the respondents despite her performing duties.

Respondents, upon notice, filed their reply.

The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had availed the
benefit of a seat reserved for a sponsored candidate for admission to Master in Hospital Administration Course from PGI Chandigarh at government expenses and accordingly in view of the condition of the sponsoring certificate, she is bound to serve the State for five years. It is further stated that even the pay scale of the post of Senior Resident offered to the petitioner at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh is higher being Rs.10940-11650/- whereas the pay scale given to her by the respondent-State is Rs. 7880-13500/- (Basic Rs.8000/-), therefore, the possibility that she will not join back, cannot be ruled out. It is also stated that there is a shortage of 450 Medical Officers and therefore, they cannot spare any Doctor for doing Senior Residency.

On 18.7.2008, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the
prayer of the petitioner for quashing order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P/12) passed the following order:-

The prayer made in this petition is for quashing order dated 27.5.2008(Annexure P12) whereby the request made by the petitioner for issuance of no objection certificate to permit her to join as Senior Resident Doctor at Government Medical College and Hospital,Chandigarh has been rejected. In support of the rejection, various reasons have been given. It has been pointed out that there are 55 posts of Senior Residents approved in the State of Punjab in two medical Colleges at Patiala and Amritsar and as such, the aforementioned colleges are competent to get the course of Senior Residency done to its PCMS Medical officer. It has been further pointed out that there is shortage of 450 Medical Officers in the Health Department, therefore, no medical officer can be sent outside the State of Punjab for doing Senior Residency.

Apart from the aforementioned pleadings, the prayer has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has done the Master in Hospital and Administration Course from P.G.I., Chandigarh at Government expense and she is bound to serve the State of Punjab for five years.

Even the pay scale of the petitioner at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh are higher being Rs.10940-11650/- whereas the pay scale given to her by the respondent-State is Rs. 7880- 13500/- (Basic Rs.8000/-).

We find that the reasons given in the impugned order(Annexure P12) are sustainable and good in law.

Therefore,the order cannot be questioned and the prayer made by the petitioner is rejected.

However, the petitioner has also made prayer for payment of her salary regularly. It is claimed that she has not been paid the salary from October, 2007 to December,2007, February, May, June, 2008.

Mr. Goyal, learned State counsel has requested for some time to file a detailed affidavit stating the reasons for non-payment of salary to the petitioner.

Let the affidavit be filed within two weeks with a copy in advance to the counsel for the petitioner.

List for further consideration on 7.8.2008.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

Thus, the petition survived only qua prayer of the petitioner for
directing the respondents to release her salary for the months of October 2007 to December 2007; February 2008 and May/June 2008.
At the time of hearing today, learned Additional Advocate General
has stated at the Bar, and which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that salary for the period in question has been paid to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place on record an
additional affidavit dated 18.8.2008 of the petitioner by way of Civil Misc. Application bearing no.15791 of 2008, and in view of the contents of the same, argued that similarly situated Doctors who had also filled up bonds to serve the State for five years, had been given No Objection Certificatewhereas the petitioner has been discriminated and victimised.

We are afraid that at this stage we cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to adjudge the legality of the impugned order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P/12), vide which her request for grant ofNo Objection Certificate has already been declined. As noticed above, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.7.2008 (reproduced above) has already decided the issue and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate and to quash impugned order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P/12) vide which the same was declined. The matter was listed today only qua the issue relating to non-payment of salary to the petitioner and that claim stands satisfied. In our view, the option available to the petitioner was either to make an appropriate application for recalling/review of of the order dated 18.7.2008 or to challenge the same in accordance with law. Such a course having not been adopted, even the application for placing on record additional affidavit dated 18.8.2008 vide C.M. No. 15791 of 2008 becomes meaningless and the same is hereby dismissed.

In view of the above, no further directions are required to be issued in this writ petition.

Disposed of.

(Jaswant Singh)
Judge

(Jasbir Singh)
Judge

U T CHD Vs KAMLESH SHARMA AND ANR CWP 17118 CAT of 2004



ARVINDER KUMAR Vs UOI ETC Civil Writ Petition 4720 CAT of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...

Date of Decision: March 13, 2008.

Arvinder Kumar ... Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India and others ... Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

Present:
Mr.A.K. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, with
Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
-.-

MOHINDER PAL, J.
In this writ petition, challenge is made to the order dated May 08, 2002 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was dismissed.

The petitioner was appointed as a Radiographic Technician in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh-respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as `respondent-College) vide appointment letter dated January 17, 1996 (Annexure P-1) after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As per the appointment letter (Annexure P-1), appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and he was kept on probation for a period of two years. It was also incorporated in the appointment letter that services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated on one month's notice. He joined the respondent-College on January 23, 1996.
Case of the petitioner to decide his probation was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as `D.P.C') in its meeting held on December 09,1998 and the D.P.C recommended his discharge from service. The Director Principal of the respondent-College agreed with the
recommendations of the D.P.C and served the petitioner with one month notice with effect from December 23, 1998 as per the condition of his appointment.

The order/notice dated December 31, 1998 has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. The petitioner has also attached with the petition order/notice dated December 23, 1998 passed by the Director Principal of the respondent-College as Annexure P-2 whereby notice of one month was given to him with effect from August 18, 1998. It has been averred in the petition that the notices (Annexures P-2 and P-3) are not sustainable in the eyes of law as these are retrospective in nature. It is further case of the petitioner that probation period of two years had expired on January 22, 1996, he having joined the
respondent-College on January 23, 1996 and that neither his probation period was extended nor there was any provision in the appointment letter to extend the probation period.

Before issuing notices (Annexures P-2 and P-3) no departmental inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Adverse remarks were never conveyed to the petitioner and his services were dispensed with without following the principles of natural justice.

On January 23, 2004, learned counsel for the respondent-College had sought an adjournment to file affidavit of the Director Principal of the respondent-College to show that the petitioner had refused to receive the relieving order dated January 23, 1999. In this regard, affidavit dated March 02, 2004, was filed by Prof. H.M. Swami, Director Principal of the respondent-College stating as under:-

“ 3. That the petitioner was working as Junior Radiographic Technician and was
under probation period. His case, to decide clearance of probation, was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 9.12.98 and keeping in view of his lackadaisical service record the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his discharge from service.

4. That the recommendation of DPC was accepted and it was decided that the
services of petitioner are no longer required by this Institute. A one month notice to this effect was served upon the petitioner as per condition No.1 of his appointment letter.

However, Dr.B.D. Gupta the then Head of the Department under whom the petitioner was working issued a relieving order dated 23.1.1999 under intimation to the deponent. But the petitioner refused to receive the orders. Dr.B.D. Gupta left the service of GMCH on 08.03.1999.”

We have heard Mr.A.K. Ahluwalia, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, assisted by Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, appearing for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and have gone through the original record which was produced by Mr. Anupam Gupta during the course of arguments.

A perusal of the original record shows that on December 02, 1997, Dr. Birinder Nagi, Professor and Head of the Department of Radiology of the respondent-College wrote letter to the Director Principal of the respondent-College bringing to his notice that the petitioner was neglecting his duties in spite of repeated warnings to him. He did X-rays of medicolegal case on November 08, 1997 while he was on night duty.

He had not put the desired markers on the X-ray films which was a serious irregularity. Dr. Birinder Negi proposed a strict action against the petitioner for this kind of negligence. The petitioner felt sorry for this lapse and undertook not to repeat it in future vide his explanation dated January 29, 1998.

However, a lenient view was taken and the petitioner was let off with a written warning issued to him vide letter dated February 20, 1998 issued by the Additional Director (Administration) of the respondent-College.

Thereafter, vide letter December 03, 1998, the Director Principal of the respondent-College inquired from the Head of Radio-diagnosis Department about the work and conduct report in respect of the petitioner as the same was required to consider his probation.

In response to this inquiry, the Head of Radio-diagnosis Department informed that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was also not regular in his reporting to duties.

Learned counsel for the respondent-College has also produced during the course of arguments `BRIEF PARTICULARS OF THE EMPLOYEES WHOSE PROBATION PERIOD IS TO BE CLEARNED (GROUP `C')'. The Registry is directed to place the same on the record of this case. Its perusal shows that case of the petitioner for clearing probation period was considered by the D.P.C in its meeting held on May 28, 1998 and it recommended extension in the probation
period for six months i.e upto November 28, 1998.

Thereafter, on December 09, 1998, as per special report received from the Head of the Radio-diagnosis Department which was not satisfactory, case of the petitioner was submitted before the D.P.C for consideration. His case was considered by the D.P.C in the meeting held on December 09, 1998 and recommendation for his discharge from service was made . The Director
Principal of the respondent-College accepted the recommendations of the D.P.C and served the notices (Annexure P-2 and P-3) as per condition No.1 of his appointment letter which reads as under:-

“ 1. That appointment is temporary and is liable to be terminated on one month's notice on either side except in case of removal for misconduct or your character and antecedents being reported to be unsatisfactory or on the abolition of the post for which no notice will be issued. It will be open to Government to pay you in lieu of the notice falls short by one month. You will not be at liberty to relinquish charge even after the expiry of the notice period without the prior consent of the competent authority.”

Dr. B.D. Gupta, Professor and Head of the Department of Radio-diagnosis vide his letter February 04,1999, informed the Office Superintendent of the Establishment Branch of the respondent-College that the relieving order was sent to the petitioner in the afternoon of January 22,1999. However, he
refused to accept the same and left the department without any information. He further informed that the petitioner was not attending his duties from the morning of February 01, 1999.

The D.P.C unanimously recommended to discharge the petitioner from service as he failed to clear the probation period. The petitioner has not alleged any mala fides against the members of the D.P.C. We have no reason to doubt the
correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the D.P.C. The members of the D.P.C had formed the opinion to recommend discharge of the petitioner from service on the basis of the record placed before them. Since the discharge order of the petitioner is based on the recommendation of the D.P.C, the same
cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary at all. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had successfully completed the probation period as he had joined the respondent-College on January 23,1996 and the probation period of two years had expired on January 22, 1996, is not well-founded. The record shows that petitioner's case for clearing probation period was considered by the D.P.C on May 28, 1998 and a recommendation was made to extend his probation period for six months. On December 09, 1998, when a special report was received from the Head of the Radio-diagnosis Department that work of the petitioner was not satisfactory, his case was submitted before the D.P.C for consideration. In the meeting held on December 09, 1998 the D.P.C recommended for discharge of the petitioner from service. Merely because decision of the D.P.C dated May 28, 1998 whereby it was recommended to extend the probation period of the petitioner for six months was not conveyed to him, it cannot be said that he is deemed to have completed the probation period successfully. A positive order was required to be passed regarding the completion of probation period of the petitioner especially when the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, as mentioned above. It is wellsettled that if services of a probationer are to be dispensed with/discharged for his overall unsatisfactory work, there is no need to hold an inquiry. The very objective of the probation is to test the suitability and if the employee is not found suitable, the competent authority has the powers to terminate his services.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

The Registry is directed to return the original record to learned counsel for the respondent-College.

( HEMANT GUPTA )
JUDGE

( MOHINDER PAL )
JUDGE

Dr Lok Raj and others Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administrations and others CWP 11836 CAT of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: March 12, 2008

Dr. Lok Raj and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administrations and others .....Respondents

Present:
Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

Dr. S.P. Dhir and another ....Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administrations and others .....Respondents

Present:
Shri Pawan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of the Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11836- CAT of 2002 and 14396-CAT of 2002, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions.

CWP No. 11836-CAT of 2002 arises out the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal’) on 26.2.2002, whereby an original application filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short `the Act’) was dismissed.

The order under challenge in CWP No. 14396-CAT of 2002 was passed by the Tribunal on 15.4.2002 relying upon the earlier order passed in the case of `Dr. Lok Singh and others v. Chandigarh Administration', which is under challenge in CWP No. 11836-CAT of 2002.

Chandigarh Administration published advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts of Professors, Readers, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers in Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. Such posts were required to be filled up on temporary/adhoc and contract basis on consolidated salary. Such advertisement was published on 26.7.1998. The petitioners submitted their applications for appointment to the post advertised and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the petitioners are appointed
on contract basis on consolidated salary. It is admitted by the petitioners that except petitioner No. 21, namely, Dr. Neelam Kaistha, all the petitioners have either resigned or have been regularly appointed by the
Administration. It is also the admitted stand of the parties that all the
petitioners were paid the minimum of the pay scale of the post on which
they were appointed on contract basis along with dearness allowance, house rent allowance etc. However, the petitioners were not granted increments as are granted to the incumbents appointed against the regular posts.

The claim of the petitioners was that they have been appointed by complying with the procedure contemplated for making the appointments
on regular basis and, therefore, the respondents are bound to pay the regular pay scale to maintain parity with the regular employees. Still further, the petitioners have a right to continue in service till regular appointments are made. As such, the respondents cannot be permitted to substitute the
petitioners with another set of contractual employees.

It is the stand of the respondents that the respondent-college was at the project stage as declared by the Government of India and Planning Commission of India upto the year 2002. Such project stage has been extended to the year 2005. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointments were made on contractual basis in the
initial days of the College so that the college becomes functional. It is also
pointed out that the regular appointments such as members of the teaching
faculty, have to be made by the Union Public Service Commission.

The learned Tribunal after considering the few judgments, returned a finding that the petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions in the contract of offer of appointment without raising any objection and they worked for number of years and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to challenge such terms of contract. Still further, the appointments were made when the respondent-College was at project stage.

Thus, the appointments have been made under a policy decision even before enacting the Rules for recruitment. Still further, the petitioners have been given minimum of pay scale and other allowances from the date of their appointment. The Court found that the petitioners are not entitled to yearly increments, which are available to regular employees and consequently, the application was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Supreme court judgment reported as Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SC page 1, to contend that the petitioners are entitled to regular scale of pay. It is also contended that since the appointments of the
petitioners were made after complying with the procedure meant for regular
appointment and by the Selection Committee, therefore, the petitioners after working for a long period, are entitled to a regular pays scale. In the
alternative, it was argued that services of petitioner No. 21, cannot be
dispensed with without making regular appointment on such post.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment reported as State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002)4 SCC 556, and a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2002(1) SLR 694, to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to regular pay scale.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. In Uma Devi’s case (supra), the Court found that the concept of equal pay for equal work is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on adhoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the rules. The Court also considered that the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain- not at arm’s length- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take that the person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. It was thus,
found that the right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals.

In fact, reliance was placed upon para 55 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court was modified and the daily wagers were ordered to be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employee of their cadre from the date of judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. However, the Court has found that there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them.

The full Bench in Vijay Kumar's case (supra), has considered all the judgments on the questions of grant of regular pay scale including the
order dated October 17, 2000 passed in SLP (Civil) 6285/97 in Chandigarh
Administration vs. Vedpal, wherein the Court directed the payment of the
wages and dearness allowance at the minimum of the revised scale of pay at par with regular employees. The Full Bench held to the following effect:-

“31. Having discussed the general principles controlling the various aspects of these cases, it will be appropriate for us to refer to the view taken by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, spreading over a period of more than 20 years, sufficiently indicates the essentials which need to be satisfied for entertaining a claim founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work or equality. Thus, we may concisely state these essentials:-

(a) The petitioners ought to be employed by the State as casual or daily rated workers;

(b) The employee ought to have worked as such for a fairly reasonable time satisfying the ingredients of continuity in service;

(c) The functions being discharged and work being performed by such employee should be similar (of course, not by mathematical formula), as that being done by a regular employee of the same department;

(d) Work performance of the employees should be satisfactory.

At the cost of repetition, we may refer that there is no dispute to the similarity of work and functions and the fact that the petitioners do not lack essential qualifications. Even if to some extent it was disputed, it would make no difference in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court. The stress on payment of minimum of the pay scale i.e. the basic pay and
dearness allowance alone was insisted upon by the Supreme Court repeatedly. In the case of Devinder Singh (supra), the petitioners, who were working as Ledger Clerks, Ledger Keepers alike some of the petitioners before us in the same department, had filed a writ claiming parity of pay. A Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.3.1996 granted the relief to the petitioners. However, upon appeal filed by the State, the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court, but granted the minimum of the pay scale. Copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure P/10 (State of Punjab and others versus Devinder
Singh and others, Civil appeal No. 4492 of 1997). The order dated 21.7.1997 reads as under;-

“The direction issued by the High Court in favour of the respondent entitling them to get the salary and allowances as regularly appointed employees
is set aside and instead it is directed that the respondents will be entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale available to the Ledger Keepers/ Ledger Clerks with appropriate allowances thereon shall be available to the respondents so long as they work as daily wage Ledger Keepers/Ledger Clerks. In view of the present order if in case any amount is found to have been paid to the respondents in excess, it will be adjusted in a phased and reasonable manner so that the respondents may not be out of pocket to a
larger extent . No costs.”

Similar relief was also granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Kulbir Singh (supra). The petitioners were granted minimum of the pay scale with effect from the date they were appointed.”

In M.R. Ganesh Babu’s case (supra), the Supreme Court found that the equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done and that it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales and other conditions of service. It was further held that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned, which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court.

Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law, we are of the opinion that non grant of increments to the petitioners, who have been appointed on consolidated salary i.e. minimum of the regular pay scale, dearness allowance and other allowances, cannot be said to be legally arbitrary or violative of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the argument raised for grant of
regular pay scale along with the increments to the petitioners. The question
in Uma Devi's case (supra) was of conferring permanent status on an
employee after spending considerable time on adhoc or daily wages. The
directions relied upon by the petitioners do not suggest that as a matter of
principle, a casual employee would be entitled to regular pay scale. In fact,
the Court has found that unequals cannot be treated as equals. Therefore,
such judgment does not help the petitioners in any manner.

As regards the claim of petitioner No. 21 (in CWP No.11836- CAT of 2002) that she should not be replaced by another contractual appointee, the same is meritorious. Petitioner No. 21 is continuing on contract basis for the last 10 years and it is fair and reasonable that such contractual employee should be replaced only by making the appointment on regular basis.

Consequently, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents to replace petitioner No. 21 (in CWP No.11836-CAT of 2002) only by a regular appointee, in accordance with law.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

(MOHINDER PAL)
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition 15685-CAT of 2002



9 yrs later, Jerath faces charges

Chandigarh, October 10 Charges are going to be framed against former UT Chief Engineer K K Jerath and five others on November 6, nearly nine years after they were booked for cheating, criminal breach of trust and corruption by the Central Vigilance Commission.

Dropping the earlier charges, the court will frame charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Jerath and the five other accused who are former executive engineers S S Bhatti and A S Dhingra, Superintending Engineer (SE) S C Katyal, contractor Tarsem Lal Singla and head draftsman Kans Raj Saini.

A case against the six was registered on September 23, 1998, on a complaint of Vinod B Ghai, a contractor who had alleged that Tarsem Lal, in connivance with Jerath, had cost a loss of over Rs 54 lakh in the tender allotment pertaining to Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector 32. It was alleged that the accused committed serious irregularities in the allotment of various works of the medical college.

The six were booked under Sections 406,409,420,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Jerath was declared a proclaimed offender (PO) in the Engineering department kickbacks case after the Supreme Court rejected his bail application. He finally surrendered before the court on November 27, 1998.

An inquiry committee report established undue favours to an electrical contractor who was enlisted by the then Chief Engineer as a civil contractor and allotted civil works of the medical college project to the tune of Rs 11 crore and other large-scale irregularities, resulting in undue benefit to the contractor at the cost of the state exchequer.
Subsequently, A S Dhingra, who was holding the charge of the Superintending Engineer, was repatriated to his parent state of Punjab. The report of the Vigilance Cell had prima facie established offences punishable under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC.

In the year 1999 Jerath was dismissed from the post of Chief Engineer. A joint team of the vigilance cell of the UT Administration and the local office of the CBI had jointly lifted samples of bricks and marble from the construction sites and found the samples substandard.

The CBI had registered a criminal case on charges of criminal conspiracy and under Prevention of Corruption Act against certain officials of the engineering department and the contractor.
When contacted, Jerath said he would challenge the orders of the trial court in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.


MRS MANJU MATHUR Versus U O I CWP 17144 CAT of 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision : May 16, 2007

Mrs.Manju Mathur and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and others .... Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL.

Present :
Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Anupam Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3.

L.N.MITTAL, J. :
The petitioners, through the instant writ petition, have
challenged the order dated 20.04.2001 (Annexure P-16) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal), thereby dismissing the Original Application (OA) No.1017-CH of 1993, preferred by the present petitioners. They have also claimed the relief of revised pay scale, at par with pay scale of corresponding equivalent posts in the State of Punjab which was claimed by them in the aforesaid OA, before the Tribunal.

The petitioner no.1 was working as a Senior Dietician and petitioner no.2 as Dietician, under Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh. The petitioners made representation for granting them pay scale at par with their counter parts in Punjab. However,
their claim was not accepted by the respondents. Their OA claiming the said relief was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

It is not a matter of dispute that in view of various notifications issued by the respondents, the petitioners are entitled to pay scale at par, with their counter parts in the State of Punjab. The question to be adjudicated upon, however, is as to what are the corresponding equivalent posts in the State of Punjab.

To adjudicate upon the aforesaid question, it is pertinent to mention that there is no post of Dietician or Senior Dietician under Director, Health Services in the State of Punjab. There is only a post of Assistant Dietician in the said Directorate. However, there are posts of Dietician
(non-gazetted) and Dietician (gazetted) in the Department of Research and Medical Education in the State of Punjab. A chart of comparative qualifications and pay scales of all the aforementioned posts has been
placed on the record as Annexure R-5, which is reproduced hereunder :-

Name of post Qualifications Pay scales upto 31.12.1985
As on 01.01.1986 As on 01.01.1996 Asstt. Dietician in Punjab
(DSH) B.Sc. Home Sc. With Experience Nil 570-1080 1500-2640 5480-8925 Dietician (NG) DRME in Punjab State B.Sc. Home Sc. With Experience Nil 570-1080 1500-2640 5480-8925
Dietician (Gazetted) in Punjab State (DRME) B.Sc. Home Sc.
and Diploma in Dietetics with Experience Nil 750-1300 2200-4000 5800-9200 Dietician in UT Chd. B.Sc. Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.(Dietetics) Experience preferred 510-940 1350-2400 4400-8925 Name of post Qualifications Pay scales upto 31.12.1985 As on 01.01.1986 As on 01.01.1996 Sr. Dietician in UT Chd. B.Sc. Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.(Dietetics) with 5 years experience as dietician 540-1080 1500-2640 5000-8100 Duties of Dietician in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, as contained in Annexure R-3 are as hereunder :-
“Duties of Dietician in Director Research and
Medical Education, Punjab :-
1. Dietician is responsible to the Medical Superintendent
for providing proper diet to the patients.

2. He will exercise control over the cook, bearers and
other staff working in the diet department.

3. He will exercise supervisory control on the distribution
and preparation of diet to the patients.

4. He will arrange the supplies of dietary articles for
hospital use on behalf of the Medical Superintendent.

5. He will scrutinize indent of dietary articles received
from wards and see that no excess diet is issued against
rules.

6. He will check the diets prescribed by the house staff in
the wards according to rules and under proper authority.

7. He will check the diet registers maintained by the staff
nurses I/c of each ward for proper record and maintenance.

8. He will exercise supervisory control on management of kitchen of Nurses Hostel and supervise the diet accounts of Nurses Hostel.

9. He will teach probationary nurses in the subjects of
Nutritional Dietetics as special subject.

Duties of Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh, as contained in
Annexure R-4 are as under :-

“Duties of Dietician in Director Health Services, U.T.,
Chandigarh :-

1. Management of Dietetic department.
2. Management of therapeutic kitchen.
3. Standardization of recipes and supervision of cooking.
4. Teaching dietetic trainees, nursing staff and others.
5. Maintaining duty roster of kitchen staff, leave record,
six monthly health record of Class IV employees and
other records required for personal management.
6. Running nutrition clinic and to attend to Dietetic
Clinic.
7. Taking surprise visits to ensure proper distribution of
food to patients particularly therapeutic diets.
8. Ordering dietary articles (dry and fresh) and
supervising the receipts and issues of all supplies.
9. Checking of purchase bills relating to dietary articles
in regard to their specification, quantity and rates and
passing them on the Accounts Section.
10. Maintenance of proper accounts for all dietary articles and inventory for dead stock articles.
11. Sanitation and cleanliness of kitchen areas.
12. Supervision of fire precautions in the department.
13. Any other duty that may be specified by the Medical
Superintendent. Respondents, by way of their written statement and affidavit attempted to make a distinction between the duties of the petitioners in U.T., Chandigarh and the duties of Dietician in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab by asserting that the primary duty for Dietician in the aforesaid department of Punjab is of teaching work, whereas it is not so in the case of U.T., Chandigarh. However, a perusal of duties of Dietician in U.T.,Chandigarh, as reproduced herein above, would reveal that the Dieticians in U.T., Chandigarh also perform duty of teaching work, as mentioned at Sr.No.4 above. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents was fair enough to acknowledge candidly that no such distinction exists.

A comparison of qualifications and duties of Dieticians in U.T., Chandigarh, with those in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab would reveal that qualifications and duties of Dieticians in U.T., Chandigarh are broadly of the same kind, rather higher, as those of Dieticians in Punjab. In this context, it would be relevant to notice that the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Dietician (Non- Gazetted) in Punjab is, B.Sc.Home Sc. and for the post of Dietician
(Gazetted) in Punjab is, B.Sc.Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics, whereas the educational qualification for the post of Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh is, B.Sc.Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.Dietetics and for the post of Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh is, B.Sc.Home Sc. And Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.Dietetics with five years' experience as Dietician.

Thus, it emerges that qualification for the posts of Dietician and Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh is higher than the qualification for the post of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) and Dietician (Gazetted) in the State of
Punjab, respectively. There is also no requirement of any experience for the aforesaid posts in Punjab whereas in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, a candidate with experience is to be preferred for the post of Dietician and
experience of five years as Dietician is mandatory for the post of Senior Dietician. Taking into consideration the educational qualifications and requirement of experience cumulatively, it can be safely concluded that the qualifications for the posts under reference in U.T., Chandigarh, are higher than those for the posts in Punjab, with which they are being compared.

Now, coming to the comparative examination of duties and responsibilities of the posts in U.T., Chandigarh with the posts in the State of Punjab, it is evident from the duties contained in Annexures R-3 and R-4 reproduced herein above that most of the duties of the relevant posts in Punjab are of ministerial nature; say for instance, the duties at Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Annexure R-3 are of ministerial nature whereas the duties at Serial Nos.6 and 9 alone are of professional/technical nature.

As against this, the duties of the relevant posts in U.T., Chandigarh are mostly professional/technical in nature; as for instance, the duties at Serial Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 in Annexure R-4 are of professional/technical nature whereas duties at Serial Nos.1 and 7 are partly professional/technical and partly ministerial and the remaining duties at Serial Nos.5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are
purely ministerial in nature. On comparison of the duties, as mentioned in Annexure R-3 and R-4 in the manner aforesaid, we are fully convinced that the duties of the relevant posts in the Union Territory of Chandigarh have
more professional content besides being of higher responsibility.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to succeed because Dietician and Senior Dietician in Union Territory, Chandigarh have higher qualifications and duties as compared to those of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) and Dietician (Gazetted) respectively in Punjab. However, there is considerable difference in the pay scales granted to the petitioners, as compared to the pay scales of Dieticians in the Department of Research and Medical Education in Punjab and the petitioners are, thus, at a great disadvantage. Consequently, Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh has to be placed at par with Dietician (Gazetted) in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, whereas Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh has to be placed at par with Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, in the matter of pay scales, as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners during the
course of arguments.

Before parting with the order, it has to be noticed that during pendency of the OA, before the Tribunal, petitioner no.1 got selected and appointed as Chief Dietician in Government Medical College and Hospital,
Sector 32, Chandigarh, with effect from 24.12.1996 and petitioner no.2 was promoted as Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh with effect from 02.04.1997.

For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to pay scales at least at par with their counterparts in Punjab, as noticed herein above. Consequently, the respondents are commanded to grant the pay scale of Dietician (Gazetted) of the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab to the Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh and to give pay scale of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) of the Department of Research and Medical
Education, Punjab to the Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh. Consequential pecuniary benefits accruing to the petitioners for the period since one year preceding the date of filing of Original Application No.1017-CH of 1993
before the Tribunal, onwards, are also ordered to be paid, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed in the terms as aforementioned.

( L.N.MITTAL )
JUDGE

( J.S.KHEHAR )
JUDGE

MRS MANJU MATHUR Versus U O I CWP 17144 CAT of 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision : May 16, 2007

Mrs.Manju Mathur and another .... Petitioners

Vs.

Union of India and others .... Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL.

Present :
Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Anupam Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3.

L.N.MITTAL, J. :
The petitioners, through the instant writ petition, have
challenged the order dated 20.04.2001 (Annexure P-16) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, the Tribunal), thereby dismissing the Original Application (OA) No.1017-CH of 1993, preferred by the present petitioners. They have also claimed the relief of revised pay scale, at par with pay scale of corresponding equivalent posts in the State of Punjab which was claimed by them in the aforesaid OA, before the Tribunal.

The petitioner no.1 was working as a Senior Dietician and petitioner no.2 as Dietician, under Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh. The petitioners made representation for granting them pay scale at par with their counter parts in Punjab. However,
their claim was not accepted by the respondents. Their OA claiming the said relief was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

It is not a matter of dispute that in view of various notifications issued by the respondents, the petitioners are entitled to pay scale at par, with their counter parts in the State of Punjab. The question to be adjudicated upon, however, is as to what are the corresponding equivalent posts in the State of Punjab.

To adjudicate upon the aforesaid question, it is pertinent to mention that there is no post of Dietician or Senior Dietician under Director, Health Services in the State of Punjab. There is only a post of Assistant Dietician in the said Directorate. However, there are posts of Dietician
(non-gazetted) and Dietician (gazetted) in the Department of Research and Medical Education in the State of Punjab. A chart of comparative qualifications and pay scales of all the aforementioned posts has been
placed on the record as Annexure R-5, which is reproduced hereunder :-

Name of post Qualifications Pay scales upto 31.12.1985
As on 01.01.1986 As on 01.01.1996 Asstt. Dietician in Punjab
(DSH) B.Sc. Home Sc. With Experience Nil 570-1080 1500-2640 5480-8925 Dietician (NG) DRME in Punjab State B.Sc. Home Sc. With Experience Nil 570-1080 1500-2640 5480-8925
Dietician (Gazetted) in Punjab State (DRME) B.Sc. Home Sc.
and Diploma in Dietetics with Experience Nil 750-1300 2200-4000 5800-9200 Dietician in UT Chd. B.Sc. Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.(Dietetics) Experience preferred 510-940 1350-2400 4400-8925 Name of post Qualifications Pay scales upto 31.12.1985 As on 01.01.1986 As on 01.01.1996 Sr. Dietician in UT Chd. B.Sc. Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.(Dietetics) with 5 years experience as dietician 540-1080 1500-2640 5000-8100 Duties of Dietician in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, as contained in Annexure R-3 are as hereunder :-
“Duties of Dietician in Director Research and
Medical Education, Punjab :-
1. Dietician is responsible to the Medical Superintendent
for providing proper diet to the patients.

2. He will exercise control over the cook, bearers and
other staff working in the diet department.

3. He will exercise supervisory control on the distribution
and preparation of diet to the patients.

4. He will arrange the supplies of dietary articles for
hospital use on behalf of the Medical Superintendent.

5. He will scrutinize indent of dietary articles received
from wards and see that no excess diet is issued against
rules.

6. He will check the diets prescribed by the house staff in
the wards according to rules and under proper authority.

7. He will check the diet registers maintained by the staff
nurses I/c of each ward for proper record and maintenance.

8. He will exercise supervisory control on management of kitchen of Nurses Hostel and supervise the diet accounts of Nurses Hostel.

9. He will teach probationary nurses in the subjects of
Nutritional Dietetics as special subject.

Duties of Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh, as contained in
Annexure R-4 are as under :-

“Duties of Dietician in Director Health Services, U.T.,
Chandigarh :-

1. Management of Dietetic department.
2. Management of therapeutic kitchen.
3. Standardization of recipes and supervision of cooking.
4. Teaching dietetic trainees, nursing staff and others.
5. Maintaining duty roster of kitchen staff, leave record,
six monthly health record of Class IV employees and
other records required for personal management.
6. Running nutrition clinic and to attend to Dietetic
Clinic.
7. Taking surprise visits to ensure proper distribution of
food to patients particularly therapeutic diets.
8. Ordering dietary articles (dry and fresh) and
supervising the receipts and issues of all supplies.
9. Checking of purchase bills relating to dietary articles
in regard to their specification, quantity and rates and
passing them on the Accounts Section.
10. Maintenance of proper accounts for all dietary articles and inventory for dead stock articles.
11. Sanitation and cleanliness of kitchen areas.
12. Supervision of fire precautions in the department.
13. Any other duty that may be specified by the Medical
Superintendent. Respondents, by way of their written statement and affidavit attempted to make a distinction between the duties of the petitioners in U.T., Chandigarh and the duties of Dietician in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab by asserting that the primary duty for Dietician in the aforesaid department of Punjab is of teaching work, whereas it is not so in the case of U.T., Chandigarh. However, a perusal of duties of Dietician in U.T.,Chandigarh, as reproduced herein above, would reveal that the Dieticians in U.T., Chandigarh also perform duty of teaching work, as mentioned at Sr.No.4 above. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents was fair enough to acknowledge candidly that no such distinction exists.

A comparison of qualifications and duties of Dieticians in U.T., Chandigarh, with those in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab would reveal that qualifications and duties of Dieticians in U.T., Chandigarh are broadly of the same kind, rather higher, as those of Dieticians in Punjab. In this context, it would be relevant to notice that the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Dietician (Non- Gazetted) in Punjab is, B.Sc.Home Sc. and for the post of Dietician
(Gazetted) in Punjab is, B.Sc.Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics, whereas the educational qualification for the post of Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh is, B.Sc.Home Sc. and Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.Dietetics and for the post of Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh is, B.Sc.Home Sc. And Diploma in Dietetics or M.Sc.Dietetics with five years' experience as Dietician.

Thus, it emerges that qualification for the posts of Dietician and Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh is higher than the qualification for the post of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) and Dietician (Gazetted) in the State of
Punjab, respectively. There is also no requirement of any experience for the aforesaid posts in Punjab whereas in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, a candidate with experience is to be preferred for the post of Dietician and
experience of five years as Dietician is mandatory for the post of Senior Dietician. Taking into consideration the educational qualifications and requirement of experience cumulatively, it can be safely concluded that the qualifications for the posts under reference in U.T., Chandigarh, are higher than those for the posts in Punjab, with which they are being compared.

Now, coming to the comparative examination of duties and responsibilities of the posts in U.T., Chandigarh with the posts in the State of Punjab, it is evident from the duties contained in Annexures R-3 and R-4 reproduced herein above that most of the duties of the relevant posts in Punjab are of ministerial nature; say for instance, the duties at Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Annexure R-3 are of ministerial nature whereas the duties at Serial Nos.6 and 9 alone are of professional/technical nature.

As against this, the duties of the relevant posts in U.T., Chandigarh are mostly professional/technical in nature; as for instance, the duties at Serial Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 in Annexure R-4 are of professional/technical nature whereas duties at Serial Nos.1 and 7 are partly professional/technical and partly ministerial and the remaining duties at Serial Nos.5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are
purely ministerial in nature. On comparison of the duties, as mentioned in Annexure R-3 and R-4 in the manner aforesaid, we are fully convinced that the duties of the relevant posts in the Union Territory of Chandigarh have
more professional content besides being of higher responsibility.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to succeed because Dietician and Senior Dietician in Union Territory, Chandigarh have higher qualifications and duties as compared to those of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) and Dietician (Gazetted) respectively in Punjab. However, there is considerable difference in the pay scales granted to the petitioners, as compared to the pay scales of Dieticians in the Department of Research and Medical Education in Punjab and the petitioners are, thus, at a great disadvantage. Consequently, Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh has to be placed at par with Dietician (Gazetted) in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, whereas Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh has to be placed at par with Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, in the matter of pay scales, as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners during the
course of arguments.

Before parting with the order, it has to be noticed that during pendency of the OA, before the Tribunal, petitioner no.1 got selected and appointed as Chief Dietician in Government Medical College and Hospital,
Sector 32, Chandigarh, with effect from 24.12.1996 and petitioner no.2 was promoted as Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh with effect from 02.04.1997.

For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to pay scales at least at par with their counterparts in Punjab, as noticed herein above. Consequently, the respondents are commanded to grant the pay scale of Dietician (Gazetted) of the Department of Research and Medical Education, Punjab to the Senior Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh and to give pay scale of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) of the Department of Research and Medical
Education, Punjab to the Dietician in U.T., Chandigarh. Consequential pecuniary benefits accruing to the petitioners for the period since one year preceding the date of filing of Original Application No.1017-CH of 1993
before the Tribunal, onwards, are also ordered to be paid, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed in the terms as aforementioned.

( L.N.MITTAL )
JUDGE

( J.S.KHEHAR )
JUDGE

Chandigarh medical college ails from ad hocism

With a building and general infrastructure that is the envy of many a medical college in the region, a relatively new campus and a student strength of 50 per class, Government Medical College and Hospital in Sector 32, Chandigarh, has a lot going for it, if only it were not for the problems it has been facing with members of the faculty, some of whom are unhappy with the recruitment and promotion rules.

A high-level of cleanliness is what strikes a visitor to this complex that was set up in 1991 on the initiative of the then Minister of Civil Aviation, Mr Harmohan Dhawan, who used his clout with the Chandra Shekhar government to push through the project. The GMC-32 focuses on teaching the MBBS students. Not even the PGI has this facility and, thus, there was a gap that this college has filled. It was precisely this plea that allowed the authorities to convert the proposed General Hospital in Sector 32 into a teaching hospital. The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, gives instruction to the MBBS students.

The college caters to only those students who have cleared the class XI and XII examinations from Chandigarh, and overall, the intake of students, who take the common entrance examination before coming in, is good. They say they receive far more individual attention than their counterparts in Punjab and Haryana, where often as many as three times these students study in a class.

Right now, many classes are held in the serai building, which was originally built to provide attendants of patients with temporary accommodation. Modern buildings have been built on the adjoining campus and many departments have already been shifted there. Besides the MBBS, the college also offers various MD courses.

Though the college dates back to 1991, its recruitment rules were only notified in 2003, which led to infighting within the faculty. Many members of the faculty are critical of the rules, which, according to them, will lead to further hardships. Especially criticised is the composite method under which promotees will have to compete not only against regular employees, but also against those on deputation. Various members of the faculty described how a person on deputation would have a vested interest in not promoting his junior, since the promotion would adversely affect his tenure. Why would they give their juniors good annual reports, knowing that if the juniors were promoted in time, those on deputation would not be needed says a senior member of the faculty.

Recruitment rules
Dr H.M. Swami, Director-Principal of the college, when asked, said the recruitment rules were indeed neither transparent nor uniform. There should be same rules for everyone, he maintains, adding that he has been working towards that objective. This is a major issue with the faculty and there has even been litigation on it, but till now, no new transparent set of rules has been adopted. Various ad-hoc normspromotion, composite method and open selectionhave been used to make appointments, and what norm will be used for which appointment varies from case to case. This anomaly has bedevilled the institution and there have been allegations of interference by persons in the Chandigarh Administration. However, overall, the college can fairly claim that it does not have to face the kind of political interference that the other medical colleges in the region have to deal with.

The Medical Council of India and the college had been at loggerheads whenever the former took exception to the number of persons on deputation, though there is no such person on the faculty now, according to Dr Swami.

Other than the faculty, nurses and administrators, employees in the other departments are contractual and, according to various sources, the policy of recruiting such employees in the position of driver, ward attendant, laboratory assistant and so on has paid dividends in terms of the quality of service. Generally, a contract is for a year and extendable up to three years. There are two contractors who bid for these services. There are nearly 700 contractual employees in the college.

Teach less theory
The 110-strong faculty is hugely talented, say the students. They claim that the strength of the faculty is double the strength in most other colleges in the region, and the student strength is less than half. This should lead to the students getting more attention from the teachers, which is so most of the time, but the students say: The teachers should give more time to students. They also want the focus to be more on clinical study and less on theoretical study.

There are nearly 140 senior residents and 65 junior residents. Patients admitted to the hospital said mostly it were the residents who took care of them, and many times, they did not get the attention of the doctors themselves, who were always too busy to attend to them.

The hospital also trains students of homoeopathy, who say that the treatment that they get varies from individual to individual. Some are kind, but many are brusque, as if we are a burden on the hospital, said one group. Much of the nursing staff is not from the region and this makes it hard for the patients and the attendants to communicate with the nurses. Patients did not speak in glowing terms about the nursing staff.

However, the helpful attitude of the administrative staff came in for a particular mention from the students, who said they did not experience the kind of problems that their counterparts faced in the other colleges.

Finally, a CT scanner, which was to be installed in 1998, is being installed next month, though there is no MRI scanner as yet. Overall, the standard of equipment and its availability is good, since it is a new and well-funded institution with caters to only a limited number of students.

Students from the previous batches, who are now studying for the MS degrees, have seen the transition. The college has been growing, and overall, the equipment is of the requisite standard, they say. They point out how the library has grown over the years. It has 6,800 books and is open till 10 pm. The books and the other reading material are adequate, given its age, and students have access to the Internet through three computers and Medline CDs updated till 2000. The employees in the library were helpful, the students said.

Limited housing is available for the faculty, while most of the students are day scholars, and nearly 100 of them live in the hostels. The girls hostel has not had a regular canteen for the past one month, which has caused the students inconvenience. The girl students complain of a lack of recreational facilities in whatever little free time they get.

Overall, the boarder said the schedule had not been made keeping their interests in view and it left them with little time to visit their families.

The Website of the college needs updating, and has information that is outdated. If we were to go by the Website, Dr Mann is still the head of this medical college! Computerisation can indeed help the hospital become more efficient and it is on the cards, says the Principal, who adds that he is trying to decentralise his powers, but this move is in a nascent stage.

What is really required is transparent, properly framed rules for recruitment and promotion. This would take care of a major source of discontent, but it is not for the head alone to do this; the Chandigarh Administration and related bodies should also play a role and help this medical college strengthen itself.

Objectives

BROAD OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The hospital, intending to meet the medicosocial needs of various communities of different economic status, has been obliged to adjust its various services/facilities of general nature and teaching to the present requirements of the society in North India. The broad objectives of the 500 bedded multi-disciplinary teaching hospital are cited below :

1. To provide comprehensive health care, encompassing preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative health care to the residents of North India drawn from the urban/semi-urban and rural areas.

2. To provide out-patient, in-patient and round the clock maternity and emergency care services of all basic and supportive general specialties. These services would be provided free to the poor whereas the more affluent component of the society will add gradually to the government revenue.
3. To provide round the clock facilities of intensive care unit, coronary care unit, burns unit and neonatal intensive care unit.
4. To provide round the clock state of the art diagnostic services/facilities in clinical pathology, including blood bank, clinical biochemistry, microbiology and radiology, including ultrasound and CT scan.
5. To provide few specialised services in clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic fields like in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, neonatology, neurosurgery, urology, plastic surgery and burns, etc.
6. To act as a free medical institution for direct/first level contact for patients and also as a secondary level referral centre for the referred cases from nearby smaller/large hospitals (Government/private), health centres, polyclinics and dispensaries situated in North India.
7. To act, specifically, as a regional overflow multi-disciplinary institution (north region) for the referred cases by linking horizontally with other peripheral 100 bedded and 500 bedded general hospitals in the north, with other major teaching institutions and larger multi-disciplinary hospital situated in other parts of Chandigarh.
8. To reduce considerably the present workload of other hospitals, especially the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and thereby offer maximum relief to the economically weaker section and middle section of the people residing in rural and semi-urban areas of Chandigarh.
9. To participate in various national health programmes, including National Family Welfare Programme, by linking with various Government/private hospitals and health centres(horizontally and vertically) and providing necessary infrastructure and facilities as per their demands.
10. To fulfill the glaring deficiency of an undergraduate Medical College in the Union Territory of Chandigarh which offers the best educational facilities in all other fields. The Government Medical College will be attached to the teaching hospital.
11. To act as a centre for Continuing Medical Education Programmes for various categories of technical and non-technical personnel of different disciplines working within and from other various sized hospitals.
12. To render facilities for conducting research activities relating to different specialties, as and when required.
13. Last but not the least the hospital, as a measure for future expansion, in response to the changing trend in hospital services, would also provide facilities/services (clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic) of various other specialties in future depending upon the real needs of the population.

Message from Director Principal

Dear Visitor

Welcome to the Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh, website. This is a new Medical College which started with the intake of 50 students in 1991. Each year a batch of 50 students, is selected solely on the basis of merit at the Combined Entrance Test conducted by the Panjab University, gets admitted. The first twelve batches have already completed their 12 months compulsory rotating internship. Chandigarh had lacked an undergraduate medical institution since the PGI catered only for postgraduate and post-doctoral courses. This deficiency has been corrected with the start of this institution. Our emphasis is to provide teaching and training facilities of an exceptionally high standard to the medical students. This has amply been confirmed by their performance at various Panjab University examinations. A large number of our students have secured admissions to postgraduate courses at PGI, Chandigarh, AIIMS, New Delhi and through the All India PG Entrance Examination. They have also performed consistently well at interviews conducted by the UPSC, Armed Forces Medical Services and various state Public Service Commissions. In addition our students are also doing post graduation in Anaesthesiology,Anatomy,Pathology,Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Psychiatry, Pulmonary Medicine,ENT,Ophthalmology and Orthopaedics in our Institute.We hope to start PG in other subjects soon. A number of students have secured placements abroad, mainly in the USA, with high percentile marks in the USMLE examination. In addition to academic excellence, students of this College have consistently performed well at different cultural, literary and sports activities. The College has a highly qualified and dedicated faculty, both in basic and clinical departments. It has been recognised for the award of MBBS degree by Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, w.e.f. 30.12.96, and has been included in the list of recognised Medical Colleges by the Medical Council of India.

Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh, is the only hospital in the public sector committed to total computerisation, both for hospital management as well as in the administrative domain. The institution being developed is environment friendly as well as patient friendly. It has already started attracting a large number of patients not only from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, but from the neighbouring states as well. I would expect you to browse through various sections of this site and shall be grateful if relevant comments and/or suggestions are left behind.


Prof. Raj Bahadur
Director-Principal
Govt. Medical College & Hospital
Sector 32, Chandigarh-160047

Student commits suicide, college denies ragging

New Delhi: The Supreme Court s ban on ragging calling it a criminal offence is not acting as a deterrent in many colleges.

A first year student of the Government Medical College in Chandigarh killed himself on Sunday. His parents say he was ragged by his seniors which led to his suicide.

The student, Manjot Singh, was a resident of Amritsar, studying in the Government Medical College and Hospital, located at Sector 32 in Chandigarh.

Manjot s parents say he had called them up from his college and said that he was very upset and would be coming back home soon.

Manjot returned home the very next day and on Sunday his parents found him dead in his bed. They say that he had ingested some poisonous substance.

Later, friends of Manjot told us he underwent severe ragging in college and then went into a depression, Manjot s father, Milap Singh said. They have demanded a high-level probe into the incident.

The college authorities though have not yet initiated any action and say that they will take action only after a proper investigation is conducted into the incident.

The police too have not yet registered a case, as they have not received formal complaint from Manjot s parents.

Manjot s body was cremated without a post mortem.

Meanwhile, the Director of the college, H M Swami, claims it was the boy s psycholgical state of mind that drove him to suicide.

We came to know that he killed himself after being ragged only from the media. We had never received any complaints from the family or the boy regarding ragging or anything like that. It seems as if the boy was suffering from some psychological illness, which is why he committed suicide, Swami said.

Swami explained that Manjot - who was ranked 38 in the All-India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Examination and was staying in the college hostel. He had given his first choice as Maulana Azad Medical College in Delhi but was rejected as he was colour-blind .

Manjot was then referred to PGIMER in Chandigarh, which said his case was not that serious and he could be admitted.

Swami said he suspected that Manjot may have been unhappy due to non-selection in the Delhi college.

However, this theory seems baseless by the fact that many other students of the college have come forward since and complained about being ragged by their seniors.

And instances of ragging are not limited up north; the University of Hyderabad has woken up to ragging as well.

The University has decided to crack the whip on pranksters and this, in spite of the absence of an anti-ragging cell. Any instances of ragging will now come under the purview of the disciplinary cell.

Security guards will also be deputed at the hostels, where most instances of ragging are reported.

Raj Bahadur would be the legal guardian

Court appoints guardian for opening bank account
Jul 24, 2010

CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday allowed principal director of Government Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) Chandigarh, Raj Bahadur, to become legal guardian of the newborn of mentally retarded rape victim of Nari Niketan, for the purpose of opening a bank account.

As per the court direction, Raj Bahadur would be the legal guardian of victim's daughter for the purpose of opening bank account but he would not be allowed to withdraw any amount without the permission of the court. However, anyone can make deposits in that account, which would be opened in Sector-32 branch of the State Bank of India (SBI).

The directions were passed by special division bench comprises of justice Surya Kant and justice Augustine Masih on Friday during the resumed hearing of the ongoing case.

Importantly, HC on May 26 had directed the UT administration to open an account in the name of victim's daughter but it could not be opened following some technical objections raised by the bank. Arguing before the bench on Friday, UT senior standing counsel informed that they wanted to open the account in the name of the girl as per the court direction by showing Raj Bahadur as principal guardian of the victim but the same was rejected by SBI on the grounds that only legal guardian can open the same. Hearing this, the bench directed SBI to open the account by appointing Raj Bahadur as legal guardian for the said purpose.

Meanwhile, amicus curie in the case, advocate Tanu Bedi, sought directions from the court for issuing guidelines for examination of the mentally retarded rape victims who cannot communicate during the trial of the court. She said that HC should direct to appoint some persons who can understand such victims and can communicate on their behalf during the trial of the case. Hearing her submissions, the bench asked the amicus to suggest the court about such guidelines on the next date of hearing.

The 19-year-old victim in this case was raped when she was staying in Nari Niketan but later was shifted to Sector-47 based 'Aasherya', a home for the mentally retarded persons. She was found pregnant on May 16 last year by the Aasherya authorities. Chandigarh administration had moved HC for the termination of her pregnancy on medical grounds.

Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered to terminate the pregnancy, which was later stayed by the Supreme Court. Later she delivered a baby girl.




Some other Colleges in Chandigarh
Growwell Academy, Chandigarh
SCO 194-95, Sector 17, Behind Mefil
Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh
Software Solution, Chandigarh
SCO-217, SEC - 36 ,
Chandigarh
Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh
Vision Academy, Chandigarh
SCO 207, Sector 36-C,
Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh
Directorate of Technical Education and Industrial Training Punjab, Chandigarh
Plot No. 1, Sector 36-A
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh
Abhimanyu IAS Study Group, Chandigarh

Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh


Bhai Gurdas Group, Sangrur

Students voice
Write to us giving good and bad things about your college, we will publish it on this site. email us at punjabcolleges @ gmail.com (without spaces)
© www.punjabcolleges.com : Engineering Colleges and deemed Universities in India      Disclaimer