www.PunjabColleges.com
Largest database of Universities and Colleges in India situated in more than 9000 towns.
Home   Contact Us
Enter College / University Name or City:
Punjab Colleges
Pvt Institutes in Punjab


Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh, Punjab



Contact


Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh, Punjab
Address:SCO 87, Sector 40-C
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Punjab, India



Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab is a State Authority under the control of State Government.
Principal of Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab is Dr Jai Kishan Director 0172-2690817 Mobile 9888774425 Fax 2690854.

Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab is situated in Chandigarh of Punjab state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Chandigarh comes under Chandigarh Tehsil, Chandigarh District.

Fax # of Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab is +91-172-2690151.

Contact Person(s) of the Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab is (are): Joint Director Dr AS Thind 9646830023.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab are +91-92572-09340.

email ID(s) is Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab Chandigarh Punjab

Website of Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab is www.punjabmedicaleducation.org.


Contact Details of Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab are : +91-172-5095926, 2690817

Sh Tikshan Sood, Minister, Medical Education and Research
H. No. 951, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh Ph. 2690733 (R), 0172-2740199 (O), Mobile No. 98147-01105
Staff members of Minister:
Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Private Secretary 98881-90353
Sh. Gubax Singh, PA 9814434003
Tejbeer Singh: Director of Research and Medical Education (DRME)
Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, IAS, Secretary to Govt. Punjab
Department of Medical Education and Research
Ph No. 0172-2742680, Mobile 94176-01764
Office 226/ 2ND Floor


Courses




Profile of Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab

Introduction
With a view to provide better medical education, research and special care to ailing patients, the Government of Punjab, in 1973 set up the Directorate of Research and Medical Education. The Directorate is supported by two medical colleges at Amritsar and Patiala, two dental colleges at Amritsar and Patiala and one Ayurvedic college at Patiala as also the hospitals attached to them. The hospitals also provide specialised services as referral hospitals providing secondary and tertiary health care facilities. The Director, Research and Medical Education (DRME) is overall in charge of two Medical Colleges and their attached teaching hospitals, two dental colleges and one ayurvedic college. While the Directorate provides for 100 per cent intake of students in the fields of dentistry and ayurveda, 14 per cent of medical students are admitted in colleges outside its control in Government sector.

Organisational set up
DRME functions under the over all supervision of the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Medical Education and Research (Secretary).

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab

DRME postpones counting of MCI poll votes (Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab)
News: 12th April, 2014
DRME postpones counting of MCI poll votes
MD and MS fees addition matter closed (Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab)
News: 4th April, 2014
MD and MS fees addition matter closed
Parents of affected MBBS aspirants approach govt (Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab)
News: 22nd March, 2014
Parents of affected MBBS aspirants approach govt

Election schedule of MCI members (Public Notice)
PG Course karke naukri nahi chodh sakenge Govt Doctors (News)
Punjab me 5 saal padhne wale ko hi Govt Bonafied Resident mane (News)
HC breather for MBBS aspirants in Punjab (News)
Post Graduation Medical Education notified (News)
Post Graduate courses (Admission Notice)
Graduate Courses in Dental Colleges (Public Notice)
Students future under risk for admission issue (News)
MBBS and BDS course (Admission Notice)
Post Graduate Diploma Course (Public Notice)
International Conference held (News)
Medical Education became costly (News)
Mohindra speaks for MBBS aspirants (News)
Medical college me gunjege vivekanand ke vichar (News)
DM in cordiology (Admission Notice)
State govt hikes fee for medical courses by 33 percent (News)
Fee in Medical colleges may hiked by 33 percent (News)
Doctoral study will be more constly in Punjab (News)
Special test for NRIs who missed NEET (News)
Fee hike in medical colleges on cards (News)
Asstt Professor (Job Vacancy)
Shortage of Medical Colleges in Pujab (News)
Pvt Medical colleges seek manifold hike in annual fee (News)
All fired up Bhagat messes it up again (News)
Manavadhikari Punjab ne mangi DRME report (News)
Safai work in Hospitals (News)
Vacancies in de addiction centres to be filled within 3 months (News)
Govt scraps Punjab domicile condition for PG Admissions (News)
No salary and no Govt quota (News)
SBBS fees doubled (News)
Filling up the senior Residents post (Public Notice)
Dr Tejbaar Singh DRMI bane (News)
Medical education dept awaits regular director (News)
Eligibility for D Pharmacy is 12th (News)
Medical Education courses recommended in Punjab (News)
Medical Colleges lai chune staff nu joining letter 30 nu (News)
Estabilished Para medical courses (Public Notice)
Foundation of Para Medical Council (Public Notice)
House sarjno ka maandey 21000 rupaye (News)
Paramedical jobs on contract basis (Job Vacancy)
Driver, Staff Nurse and Medical Social workers etc (Job Vacancy)
Message of Chunni Lal Bhagat (Advertisement)
Supply of Hospital Material (Tender)
Khafa CM ne Chunni Lal ko talab kiya (News)
Pvt Medical Colleges to sell seats (News)
Regarding Posts (Public Notice)
Govt ke Medical Colleges ki halat sudharegi task force (News)
Machinery Equipments etc (Public Notice)
Proposal to increase MBBS seats delayed (News)
Seats wich 25 fisdi katoti prati Students 10 hazar jurmana (News)
Medical Shiksha ke Director pad ko khinchtan (News)
Purchase Books and Journals (Tender)
Disposal of Biomedical waste (Tender)
Machinery Equipments (Tender)
Essential Drugs (Tender)
Dental Material,Chemical and Glassware etc (Tender)
Post Matric Scholarship (Advertisement)
Health Educator,Audio Visual Technician and Medical Social Worker etc (Job Vacancy)
Senior Lecturer (Corrigendum)
Senior Residents required (Public Notice)
Medical Colleges me hogi Doctors ki sidhi bharti (News)
Disposal of Biomedical waste (Tender)
Medical Sikhiya vibhag de mulajma de jalli tabdiliya da pardafarash (News)
Jantak Suchna (Advertisement)
Change in the advertisement (Tender)
Change in the post of Medical Teachers (Corrigendum)
Marijo ke behtar upchar me nayi khoj (News)
Every doctor needs to know the new research and Techniques (News)
Change in the tender (Tender)
Change in the Tender (Corrigendum)
Foundation Stone of Medical Education and Research Bhawan (Advertisement)
After Badal slip, govt clarifies (News)
Dental Materials and Hospital Material etc (Tender)
Medical Education (Job Vacancy)
Sarkari Medical Colleges de teachers 70 saal takk kar sakange naukri (News)
Change in the tender notice (Corrigendum)
Medical Oxygen gas and Nitrogen Oxide gas etc (Corrigendum)
Tender of Material Supply items (Tender)
Corrigendum (Corrigendum)
MO kam lecturer ka future latka (News)
Books and Journals (Tender)
Para medical council not a recognized body (News)
Para Medical Council not a recognized body (News)
Manufacturing unit of Medicine (Tender)
Change in the post of Medical Superintendent (Corrigendum)
Mammography Machine (Tender)
Public Notice ()
Public Notice ()
Lecturer on Regular Basis (Job Vacancy)
Staff Nurses Radiographer (Job Vacancy)
Proffessor Reader and Lecturers etc (Job Vacancy)
Public Notice (News)
Private sansthana prati shikayta layi Nodal Authority (News)
Medical Education da khetar Govt de hatha wicho khiskiya (News)
Machinery Equipment and Hospital Material etc (Tender)
Short term tender Notice of medicine (Corrigendum)
Various Posts (Public Notice)
Para Medical diya vacancies lai Interview 13 toh (News)
Smt Kulwinder Kaur absent from Staff Nurse duty (Public Notice)
DC ko adhikar (News)
Senior Residents (Job Vacancy)
Senior Residential (Job Vacancy)

Media coverage of Director Research and Medical Education DRME Punjab, Chandigarh Punjab, Punjab

Avtar Singh Saini versus Director Research and Medical Education Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
House No. 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar.
…...Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Research & Medical Education,
Sector 34, Chandigarh. ……. Respondents

CC No. 1186 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Mr. Avtar Singh Saini, in person.
Representative, Mr. Dheeraj, Jr. Asstt., office of DRME, Chandigarh and Mr. Surinder Singh, Sr. Asstt.-cum-APIO, office of Medical College, Amritsar.
----
During the hearing on 18.09.2009, the PIOs of the 02 Respondents, i.e. Dr. K. C. Manchanda of Government Medical College, Amritsar and Dr. PPS Cooner, office of DRME, Chandigarh, were directed to be personally present alongwith the requisite information.

2. Today, a FAX message has been received from the office of the Principal, Medical College, Amritsar, saying that Dr. Manchanda is on leave because of marriage in the family. However, there is no correspondence as to why Dr. Cooner is not present and Dr. Dheeraj has no cogent argument to give as to why Dr. Cooner is not present. The Court takes cognizance of the absence of Dr. Cooner.

3. The two representatives of the Respondents are ignorant of the case. A copy of this be sent to Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, who would ensure correct information/documents is given to the Complainant and that the two PIOs will be personally present with the demanded information at the next date of hearing to resolve the issue as to who is the actual custodian of the information demanded by the Complainant; failing which, the PIOs will be proceeded against Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The case is adjourned for 04.11.2009 (Wednesday), at 10.30 AM, in Court No. 1, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, October 16, 2009 State Information Commissioner

cc: Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, IAS,
Secretary, Medical Education & Research,
Punjab, Mini Secretariat,
Sector 9, Chandigarh.

Avtar Singh Saini versus Director Research and Medical Education Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
House No. 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar. …...Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Research & Medical Education,
Sector 34, Chandigarh. ……. Respondents

CC No. 1186 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Mr. Avtar Singh Saini, in person.
Representative, Mr. Dheeraj, Jr. Asstt., office of DRME, Chandigarh and Mr. Surinder Singh, Sr. Asstt.-cum-APIO, office of Medical College, Amritsar.
----

During the hearing on 18.09.2009, the PIOs of the 02 Respondents, i.e. Dr. K. C. Manchanda of Government Medical College, Amritsar and Dr. PPS Cooner, office of DRME, Chandigarh, were directed to be personally present alongwith the requisite information.

2. Today, a FAX message has been received from the office of the Principal, Medical College, Amritsar, saying that Dr. Manchanda is on leave because of marriage in the family. However, there is no correspondence as to why Dr. Cooner is not present and Dr. Dheeraj has no cogent argument to give as to why Dr. Cooner is not present. The Court takes cognizance of the absence of Dr. Cooner.

3. The two representatives of the Respondents are ignorant of the case. A copy of this be sent to Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, who would ensure correct information/documents is given to the Complainant and that the two PIOs will be personally present with the demanded information at the next date of hearing to resolve the issue as to who is the actual custodian of the information demanded by the Complainant; failing which, the PIOs will be proceeded against Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The case is adjourned for 04.11.2009 (Wednesday), at 10.30 AM, in Court No. 1, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, October 16, 2009 State Information Commissioner


cc: Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, IAS,
Secretary, Medical Education & Research,
Punjab, Mini Secretariat,
Sector 9, Chandigarh.

DR NEHA SHARMA and OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

L.P.A. No.701 of 2009 (O and M)

Date of decision: 7.8.2009

Dr. Neha Sharma and others. -----Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents

CORAM:-
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:-
Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellants.

ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The direction sought in the writ petition was to cancel the result of examination for selecting Demonstrators in the Medical College.

3. Case of the appellants is that on 13.6.2008, advertisement was given for filling up 27 posts of Demonstrators.

520 persons applied for the said posts. The Screening Test was to be held on 15.3.2009 but the same was deferred and was held on 19.7.2009. 174 candidates appeared in the said test. Result was declared on 20.7.2009. The said result was liable to beLPA No.701 of 2009 quashed on the ground that no identification of the candidates was affixed on the roll number slips, which could result in impersonation. There were four examination centres, quite away from each other and time gap in distributing the papers could result in leakage. Mass copying took place. The paper was objective type and mobile phones could be used. There was no checking of mobile phones and calculators at the entrance where the examination held.

4. The learned Single Judge held that the question raised in the petition was disputed question of fact and in
absence of any clinching material, it was not open for the Court to go into the matter.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti 1998(9) SCC 236, where on account of leakage of question paper and copying, as reported in the report of the Naib Tehsildar and the valuers, the decision was taken by the School Education Board to cancel the result. The said decision was interfered with by the High
Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that there being sufficient material in support of the decision of the School Education Board, there was no ground for the High Court to cancel the decision taken.

7. We do not find any relevance of the judgment relied upon. In the present case, there is neither any decision taken by any authority nor any report made by any official agency. Holding of examination has to be left to the concerned authorities. In absence of any clinching material, a direction to cancel result cannot be given. At best, the appellants can approach the concerned authorities.

8. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE

( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
JUDGE

KULDEEP KAUR and ANR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB and ORS CWP 9456 of 2006



Dr Virinder Singh versus Director Research and Medical Education Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
S.C.O. NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Dr.Virinder Singh,
1-A, Circular Road,
Opposite Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar
….. Complainant
Vs

Public Information Officer,
O.O The Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar. ….. Respondent

CC No.1293 of 2007

ORDER

Present: None is present on behalf of the Complainant.
Dr.Gurpal Singh, Asstt..Professor of Medicines & PIO, Govt. Medical Coillege, Amritsar; Sh.Rajinder Kumar, Accountant, Govt., Medical College, Amritsar; Mrs.Sita Devi Sharma, APIO, Supdt., and Sh.R.R.Narula, Senior Asstt., O/o DRME, Pb., Chandigarh.

1. The complainant had sought information on 30.11.2006 relating to pay fixation carried out on 1.1.1996 in respect of 67 doctors of Govt. Medical College, Amritsar. On getting no response, he filed a complaint with the first appellant authority on 25.5.2007 and on getting no response from the first appellant authority, filed a complaint with the Commission on 16.7.2007.

2 During today’s proceedings wherein the complainant was not present, owing to marriage of his daughter on 25.11.2007, it was discerned that no information had been provided by the Respondent. It was directed that all information as has been demanded by the complainant and not exempted, be provided to him or an affidavit be submitted in case any part of information was not held on record/not available.

3. To come up on 11.12.2007

4 Announced in the hearing. .Copies be sent to both the parties.


Chandigarh ( P.K.Grover )
Dated:20.11.2007 Lt.Gen. (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

BINISH KATHURIA AND ORS Versus STATE OF PB AND ORS CWP 6999 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


Date of decision: 12.7.2007

Binish Kathuria and Others. -----Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

Present:
Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioners.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
This petition challenges Clauses 13 and 14 of the Notification No.5/8/2007-3HB3/1334 dated 21.03.2007 laying down procedure and conditions for admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses during the session 2007.

Case of the petitioners is that they are graduates from medical colleges in the State of Punjab and have appeared in Post Graduate Entrance Test for admission to M.D./M.S./P.G. Diploma/MDS and DM/MCH Courses.

As per notification (Annexure P-1), except the seats to be filled by the Central Government, all other seats are reserved for bonafide residents of the State of Punjab. It has been further provided CWP. No.6999 of 2007 that out of 50% of seats to be filled up out the residents of Punjab, 60% seats are from in-service candidates and 40% from others.

Clauses 13 and 14, which have been called in question, are as under:-

13. All seats in the Post Graduate courses, except the seats to be filled by the Central Government, in all the Institutions both Government and Private aided, unaided or minority, shall be filled out of the eligible candidates, who are bonafide residents of the State of Punjab. Punjab
Resident status of candidates will be determined in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab in the Department of Personnel (Personnel Policies Branch) vide its circular letters No.1/3/95-3PPII/9619, dated 6/6/1996 and No.1/2/95-3PII/81 dated 1/1/1999.

Condition of bonafide residents of the State of Punjab shall not be applicable to the candidates belonging to the following categories of Punjab residents:-

i. Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those Punjab Government employees, members of All India Services borne on Punjab cadre, of Judges and employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, employees Boards/Corporations/Statutory Bodies established by an act of the State of Punjab who have remained posted outside Punjab for at least three years out of the five years preceding the year of
PGET-2007 and their wards because of their posting outside Punjab had to do MBBS/BDS from an institution outside Punjab.

ii. Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those Central employees, employees of Boards/Corporations/Statutory Bodies established by an Act of the Central Government who have remained posted inside Punjab for at least three years out of the five years preceding the year of PGET-2007 and their wards because of their posting outside Punjab had to do MBBS/BDS from an institution outside Punjab.

iii. Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those Punjab Government pensioners who have remained posted outside Punjab for three years out of the five years preceding the year of PGET-2007 and have settled outside Punjab and their wards because of their posting outside Punjab had to do MBBS/BDS from an institution outside Punjab.

iv. Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of military/para military forces personnel who were born in the territory of Punjab as per their service record at the time of entry into the service.
v. Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of Ex-employees of military/para military forces who were born in the territory of Punjab as per their service record at the time of entry into the service and
have retired within five years preceding the year of PGET-2007 and have settled outside Punjab.

14. In the Government institutions, 50% of the total seats in every such institution shall be filled by the Government of India on all India basis through an all India Competitive Entrance Test. The remaining seats shall be filled through the Post Graduate Entrance Test-2007 (PGET-2007).

Out of the remaining seats, 60% seats shall be filled up from amongst the eligible PCMS/PCMS (Dental)/PDES in service doctors and 40% shall be open to all eligible medical/dental graduates.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that filling up of 50% of seats from the bona fide residents of Punjab was against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri and another v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 361. It was submitted that what was upheld in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra), was reservation by way of institutional preference, while as per Clause 13, reservation has been made for residents of the State. He further submitted that reservation based on residential requirement, was not permissible for Post Graduate courses.

Though this aspect may have required consideration, in view of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra) (para 48), we find that the issue has already been gone into in a judgment of this Court dated 24.05.2007 in C.W.P. No.5446 of 2007, Dr. Manish Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and others. In the said judgment, clause 37 of the impugned order was quashed and a direction was issued to make reservation in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra). Operative part of the said judgment is as under:-

In view of facts mentioned above, clause 37 of the notification No.5/8/2007-3 HB3/1334, dated March 21, 2007 (Annexure P-1), as mentioned in the prospectus for PGET- 2007 is quashed being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magan Mehrotra’s case (supra) and also reiterated in Saurabh Chaudhary’s case (supra)
and being ultra vires to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, keeping in view ratio of the judgments, referred to above, liberty is granted to respondents No.1 and 2 to reserve, by way of institutional preference, to the exclusion of the petitioners, 11 seats out
of 21 seats available for general category candidates.

This aspect of the matter has also been noted in another judgment of this Court dated 11.07.2007 in Dr. Priya Garg v. State of Punjab and Others (C.W.P. No.9957 of 2007), while dealing with the issue of order of counselling.

In view of above, challenge to Clause 13 of the impugned notification has been rendered unnecessary. Needless to observe that the State of Punjab is bound by the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra), that reservation for Post Graduate courses has to be based on institutional preference and not on place of residence, apart from other permissible constitutional reservations.

Observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in para 48 of the judgment, are as under:-

48. Referring to the State mentality and pointing out to the law that there does not exist any separate State domicile in India, this Court specifically banished the residential requirement for the purpose of admission into Post- Graduate Medical Courses for all times. It directed :

So much for admission to the MBBS course, but different consideration must prevail when we come to consider the question of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for admission to the post-graduate courses, such as, MD, MS and the like. There we cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other considerations because that would be detrimental to the interest of the nation. It was rightly pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran case, and we wholly endorse what he has said :-

The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scales of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked
by selecting according to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency, where intentional measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a natinal loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk. (SCC pp. 778-79, para 23).

If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks.

This proposition has greater importance when we reach the higher levels of education like post-graduate courses. After all, top technological expertise in any vital field like medicine is a nation's human asset without which its advance and development will be stunted. The role of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels of education,
jobs and disciplines of social inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment. To devalue merit at the summit is to temporise with the country's development in the vital areas of professional expertise. In science and technology and other
specialised fields of developmental significance, to relax lazily or easily in regard to exacting standards of performance may be running a grave national risk because in advanced medicine and other critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress, the people
of India should not be denied the best the nation's talent lying latent can produce. If the best potential in these fields is cold shouldered for populist considerations garbed as reservations, the victims, in the long run, may be the pople themselves. Of course, this unrelenting strictness in selecting the best may not be so imperative at other levels where a broad measure of efficiency may be good enough and what is needed is merely to weed out the worthless.
(SCC p. 785, para 39)

Secondly, and more importantly, it is difficult to denounce or renounce the merit criterion when the selection is for post-graduate or post-doctoral courses in specialised subjects. There is no substance for sheer flair, for creative talent, for fine-tuned performance at the difficult heights of
some disciplines where the best alone is likely to blossom as the best. To sympathise mawkishly with the weaker sections by selecting sub-standard candidates, is to punish society as a whole by denying the prospect of excellence say in hospital service. Even the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs the attention of super-skilled specialists, not humdrum second rates. So it is that relaxation on merit, by overruling equality and quality altogether, is a social risk where the stage is post-graduate or post-doctoral. (SCC p. 786, para 44)

These passages from the judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. clearly and forcibly express the same view which we have independently reached on our own and indeed that view has been so ably expressed in these passages that we do not think we can usefully add anything to what has already been said there. We may point out that the Indian Medical Council has also emphasised that playing with merit, so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned, for pampering local feeling, will boomerang. We may with advantage reproduce the recommendation of the Indian Medical Council on this point which may not be the last word in social wisdom but is certainly worthy of consideration :

Students for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the under-graduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conduced by the Universities.

The Medical Education Review Committee has also expressed the opinion that "all admissions to the postgraduate courses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all-India basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicile in the State/Union Territory in which the institution is located." So also in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney-General, the Government of India has categorically expressed the view that :

So far as admission to the institutions of postgraduate colleges and special professional colleges is concerned, it should be entirely on the basis of all-India merit subject to constitutional reservations in favour of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post-graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate
courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or University, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical college or University but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent. of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in the same manner as directed by us in the case of admission to the MBBS course. But, even in regard to admissions to the post-graduate course, we would direct that so far as super specialities such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are concerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and admissions should be granted purely on merit on all-India basis.

It in no uncertain terms directed :

The decisions reached by us in these writ petitions will bind the Union of India, the State Governments and Administrations of Union Territories because it lays down the law for the entire country and moreover we have
reached this decision after giving notice to the Union of India and all the State Governments and Union Territories. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coming now to the question of validity of Clause 14, reproduced above, reservation for in-service candidates has been upheld on the ground that the said reservation was merely a source of admission, validity of which could not be determined on the constitutional principles applicable to communal reservation.

Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Duraisamy and another v. State of Tamilnadu and others (2001) 2 SCC 538. The matter was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Gopal D. Tirthani and others AIR 2003 SC 2952 and it was observed:-

19. The controversy in the present litigation does not concern the open category candidates; it is confined to inservice candidates. We, therefore, propose to preface our discussion by determining the nature of 20% seats allocated to in-service candidates - whether it is by way of reservation or quota or is a channel of entry. Our task stands simplified by the law laid down by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court recently in K. Duraiswamy and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2001) 2 SCC 538. The question arose for decision in almost a similar factual background. The seats were at the State level and not all-India quota seats. The State Government had allocated 50% of the seats exclusively for in-service candidates and left the remaining 50% seats as open quota,
i.e., to be filled in from out of such candidates as were not in State Government service. The classification was made as 'service quota' and 'open quota,' for in-service candidates and other candidates respectively, confining the respective class/cadre candidates to the respective percentages earmarked for the two of them exclusively. The Court held :-

(i) the Government possesses the right and authority to decide from what sources the admissions in educational institutions or to particular disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in what proportion;

(ii) that such allocation of seats in the form of fixation of quota is not to be equated with the usual form of communal reservation and, therefore, the constitutional and legal considerations relevant to communal reservations are out of place while deciding the case based on such allocation of seats;

(iii) that such exclusive allocation and stipulation of a definite quota or number of seats between in-service and non-service or private candidates provided two separate channels of entry and a candidate belonging to one exclusive quota cannot claim to steal a march into another exclusive quota by advancing a claim based on merit. Inter se merit of the candidates in each quota shall be determined based on the merit performance of the candidates belonging to that quota;

(iv) that the mere use of the word 'reservation' per se is not decisive of the nature of allocation. Whether it is a reservation or an allocation of seats for the purpose of providing two separate and exclusive sources of entry would depend on the purpose and object with which the expression has been used and that would be determinative of the meaning, content and purport of the expression.

Where the scheme envisages not a mere reservation but is one of the classification of the sources from which admissions are to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups does not attract applicability of considerations relevant to reservation simplicitor.

20. K. Doraiswamy's case (supra) was considered and explained by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS and others (2002) 1 SCC 428. The following observation is appropriate and apposite for the purpose of the case at hand and is, therefore, extracted and reproduced hereunder. The Court was considering the question of allocation of seats between inservice and open category candidates, the candidates in both the categories being medical graduates, and not a reservation in favour of weaker section of the society or those who deserve or need to be affirmatively discriminated.

The Court then said-
"Some of them had done graduation sometime in the past and were either picked up in the Government service or had sought for joining Government service because, may be, they could not get a seat in post-graduation and thereby continue their studies because of shortage of seats in higher level of studies. On account of their having remained
occupied with their service obligations, they became detached or distanced from theoretical studies and, therefore, could not have done so well as to effectively compete with fresh medical graduates at the PG entrance examination. Permitting in-service candidates to do postgraduation by opening a separate channel for admittance
would enable their continuance in Government service after post-graduation which would enrich health services of the nation. Candidates in open category having qualified in post-graduation may not necessarily feel attracted to public services. Providing two sources of entry at the postgraduation level in a certain proportion between in-service candidates and other candidates thus achieves the laudable object of making available better doctors both in public sector and as private practitioners.

The object sought to be achieved is to benefit two segments of the same society by enriching both at the end and not so much as to provide
protection and encouragement to one at the entry level.

The conclusion reached in the judgment, has been summed up in para 36 of the said judgment as under:-

36. We sum up our conclusions as under :-

1. In the State of Madhya Pradesh allocation of 20% seats in post-graduation in the Universities of Madhya Pradesh for in-service candidates is not a reservation; it is a separate and exclusive channel of entry or source of admission, the validity whereof cannot be determined on the constitutional principles applicable to communal reservations. Such two channels of entry or two sources of admission is a valid
provision.

2. There can be only one common entrance test for determining eligibility for post-graduation for in-service candidates and those not in service. The requirement of minimum qualifying marks cannot be lowered or relaxed
contrary to Medical Council of India Regulations framed in this behalf.

3. In the State of Madhya Pradesh there are five Universities, i.e. there are Universities more than one. Regulation 9(2)(iii) cannot be made use of in the State of Madhya Pradesh either singly or in combination with Cl. (i) for determining the eligibility for entrance into PG courses.

4. It is permissible to assign a reasonable weightage for service rendered in rural/tribal areas by in-service candidates for the purpose of determining inter se merit within the class of in-service candidates who have qualified in the Pre-PG test by securing the minimum qualifying
marks as prescribed by the Medical Council of India.

5. Women candidates constitute a class by themselves and the provision of relaxed or reduced eligibility criteria by reference to continuous service rendered in rural areas for the purpose of sponsorship by the State Government in specified disciplines which have utility for serving women
folk in villages does not suffer from the vice of invidious discrimination.

The issue of in-service candidates has also been considered by this Court in Dr. Balwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No.6458 of 2007) decided on 9.7.2007.

Thus, Clause 14 of the impugned order not having been shown to be inconsistent with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal D. Tirthani (supra), the same cannot be declared to be invalid.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE

( AJAI LAMBA )
JUDGE

BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS CWP 6458 of 2007





Some other Colleges in Punjab
Lord Krishna College of Management and Technology, Khokhar Kalan
Lehragaga Sunam Road, Vill Chajli
Khokhar Kalan (District Sangrur)
Punjab
Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa (GTB Khalsa) Group, Chhapianwali Village

Chhapianwali Village (District )
Punjab
Swift Institute of Management and Technology, Patiala
Ghaggar
Patiala (District Patiala)
Punjab
LM Thapar School of Management, Patiala

Patiala (District Patiala)
Punjab
Goldenway College of Management, Morinda

Morinda (District Ropar)
Punjab



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