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


Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, Punjab



Contact


Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, Punjab
Address:Sangrur Road
Patiala (District Patiala)
Punjab, India
Pin Code : 147001


Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab is a recognised institute / college.
Principal of Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab is Dr. Surinder Singh 98550-60083, Res 213205, Dr. K.D. Singh.

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

Fax # of Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab is 0175-2212055.

email ID(s) is Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala Punjab

Website of Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab is www.gomco.org.


Contact Details of Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab are : Telephone: +91-175-2212018
Dr Ravinder Singh, Chairman GOMCO Patiala Alumni Assocoation
Medical Superintendent: Dr KD Singh
Deputy Medical Supdt: Dr Harsinder Kaur
HoD Dr Kanchan Bhardwaj

College of Lab Technology, Government Medical College Patiala runs DMLT Course.


Courses

DMLT

BDS, Dips in Medicine, MCh, DM and Dresses Course, Ophthalmic, Medicine and Surgery, Gynaecology, Child-Health
Diploma in Anesthesia
Diploma in Child Health
Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Diploma in Ophthalmology
M.Ch - Plastic Surgery
MBBS
MD - Anaesthesiology
MD - Bio-Chemistry
MD - Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy
MD - Forensic Medicine
MD - General Medicine
MD - Microbiology
MD - Ophthalmology
MD - Pharmacology
MD - Physiology
MD - Psychiatry
MD - Radio Diagnosis
MD - Social & Preventive Medicine / Community Medicine
MD - Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases
MS - Anaesthesia
MS - Anatomy
MS - ENT
MS - General Surgery
MS - Orthopaedics
D.Pharm


Number of seats in Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab is 150 Seats.
Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab runs course(s) in Medical, Pharmacy stream(s).

Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital is affiliated with Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot (Punjab)


Profile of Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital

Patiala college lacks funds and teachers
It came up in a flash and produced generations of doctors, it is now dragging along and is no longer inspirational. Government Medical College, Patiala, has been a premier medical institution for a long time, but it now shows symptoms that are alarmingly similar to those shown by its sister institutions in the state.

It was in 1953 that the father of the present Chief Minister of Punjab and the father-in-law of the present Principal of the college had got together to set up the institution. As one enters the college, one can see the stone laid by President Dr Rajendra Prasad. The 90-acre campus is clean, its front-lawns manicured. However, the paint is pealing at many places, and the rear lawns on the campus are not well maintained.

This could well be a metaphor. There are some bright spots, some things can be glossed over, but the signs of decay are vivid. It is ironic that the institution that benefited from the munificence of Maharaja Yadavindra Singh is suffering from ills the roots of which can be traced to the deprivation caused by a lack of funds and personnel, even when his son, Capt Amarinder Singh, is ruling the state. The college caters to a large number of students. There are 150 seats for the five-year-and-a-half MBBS course, 40 for the BDS, 50 for D. Pharmacy, 30 for laboratory technicians course, and 11 for radiographer course. There are also 50 seats for nursing, but this has come at the cost of the General Nursing course, which had been taught much before Independence. This at a time when nursing is much in demand and the college and its hospital are facing a shortage (as high as 45 per cent, according to one source) of qualified nurses! Ms Jiwan Preet Kaur, president of the Punjab Nursing Association, points out that since the inception of the college, the departments have doubled, but the nurses have lost half their strength and 220 posts of nurse are now vacant. Instead of closing the basic nursing course, provisions should have been made for nurses taking Post-Basic Nursing courses, as they do at the PGI, she says.

The college authorities say that the course was stopped on instructions from the government, though the college itself would have liked it to continue. If so, it is a decision that defies reason, especially since there are over 60 private nursing colleges doing a roaring business in Punjab and there are many employment opportunities abroad.

After talking to a cross-section of the faculty, it was evident that some home truths had to be accepted. While expectations from doctors still remain high, their work reflects to which society they belong. There has been a change in the kind of students who enter the college, as also the teachers. These days, students take tuitions from Class IX onwards in botany, zoology, physics and chemistry. Often, this means that parents are spending upwards of Rs 60,000 every year till the time the child enters a medical college, if he is lucky. By and large, the students are persons of means with their own standard of living to consider once they graduate and gain experience.

As for doctors who are working here, the rules regarding private practice notwithstanding, it is a reality, and according to many patients, doctors often trudge in late at the OPDs because of this. On probing further on the basis of an observation by a section of students that certain good teachers had left the college, it turned out that some of them were doing very well in private practice. No matter what, it is the students who suffer. An intern said, when he had just joined the college, there had been four Professors in the Skin Department. Now there is only one. This affects the postgraduate-course students, since normally two PG students are attached to a Professor, he said.

Shortage of staff is a serious problem all over Punjab, and in this college, out of a sanctioned strength of 189, there are 52 vacancies in the faculty (Professor to Lecturer). There are seven vacancies for senior resident, 65 for class III position and 26 for class V employee. Though rationalisation could help somewhat, since there are some departments that are top heavy, the shortage is evident and acute. The budget for the college is clearly inadequate, since most of the money is spent on salary, transport and other costs. Doctors point out that for the past 10 years, they have not received any TA/DA for official work, which includes giving evidence in courts for medico-legal cases, and want the Home Department to give them so. Maintenance of equipment, chemicals and other necessities is absent. In any case, the procedure for repairing equipment is cumbersome.

There is an acute shortage of equipment CAT-scan machine in Rajendra Hospital, which is attached to the college, has been dysfunctional for more than a year. In the meantime, four private CAT machines are said to be operating in the city. Of course, the operators charge more than the hospital would, but the patients have no other recourse.

Dr Kiranjeet Kaur, the Principal, says that she is confident of getting a new machine soon, but even she would not venture when. As for the other problem people face, because of the non-functioning of the cobalt therapy unit for cancer treatment, she says the company requires advance payment, which is not permissible under the rules. However, I am still hopeful of finding a solution. The Principal might be enthusiastic, but what can you do if your financial powers end at Rs 500 per day and Rs 10,000 during an emergency Most of the time is wasted in battling bureaucracy, which has over-centralised decision-making. She proudly points out that her students get top positions in Punjab and the college is the first choice for students during placement.

As for students, they are generally positive about the infrastructure and the faculty. They say that the hostels are being renovated and the food and security is generally good. The girls and the boys both lamented the lack of cultural activities in the college. The Internet facility is adequate and the books in the library are outdated, a fact conceded by the authorities, who cite lack of budget for the situation.

Many doctors complained that while they are entrusted with taking life-and-death decisions for their patients, they are not trusted to make even small decisions that have financial implications. There are tight government controls and the quotation system has been a bane, since quality goes down while cost actually goes up. The government has disowned medical education, but shackled us. Medical education is not a business and should not be treated as one. Professionals are too shy of being on cumbersome purchasing committees, a doctor said. Not that there has been no effort to simplify the system. Dr Kiranjeet Kaur's husband, Dr Ravinder Singh who is the son of hospital founder Dr Amarjit Singh and who headed the institution before her and was also the Director, Medical Education, Punjab, before his retirement worked with the state's Finance Department to formulate a policy to smoothen the working of medical institutions, including this college.

We worked on the draft with experts from the department, but the final document was twisted, distorted and not what we had agreed upon. He protested and the document was submitted for reappraisal, i.e. put in cold storage. There has been no new Director, Medical Education, since he retired in 2001.

At Rajendra Hospital, cleanliness is just not there. Just next to the mortuary, there is a huge dump of biomedical waste and enquiries reveal that the issue of its disposal is tied in red tape. Even for disposing of the waste, we need permission from Chandigarh, said a disgruntled employee. Even the cold chambers in the mortuary are not working. The hospital no longer attracts as many patients as it did some time ago. A variety of reasons are given for it, including the levelling of user charges, which raised the cost of treatment in the hospital. It is, however, still cheaper than private facilities, though how much value for money it provides is debatable. The money accrued from user-charges was supposed to be ploughed back into the institution, which has not been done. The sum is more than Rs 23 crore, which includes the money received from NRI students. Thus, while budgets are cut, money supposed to be given to the institution also does not reach it.

The alumni are keen to help. They form one of the largest groups of doctors abroad and want to contribute their skills, advanced equipment and even money. However, they want certain safeguards and commitments, which the bureaucrats are loath to give. Thus, a fairly large corpus is being kept in abeyance because of this. The alumni recently got the college auditorium renovated.

Bureaucratic bungling has allowed this institution and others like it to decay. Over-centralisation of decision-making must be replaced with more powers to the college Principals, who, in turn, should be asked to show results. As for Government Medical College, Patiala, born as it was with a silver spoon, it has to face a difficult future. The college needs a transfusion of funds and new talent. If that happens, the prognosis is good. Without it, it will continue to be a pale shadow of what it was.

Profile
The college was started by the PEPSU Government in October, 1953. It consists of an administrative block and self contained blocks for the basic clinical departments

Rajindra Hospital, Patiala with 900 beds was attached to the college in early 1954. The hospital is equipped with all the latest apparatus and instruments to make it fit for imparting clinical teaching to the students.

A Tuberculosis and chest Diseases hospital with a capacity of 161 beds and a primary health centres at Bhadson, Kauli and Tripuri are attached with the college for teaching purposes. The college is famous in India as GOMCO is affiliated to Baba Farid University at Health Sciences, Faridkot (Punjab) for MBBS, BDS and various other courses.

There are four hostels, two for girls and two for boys. In addition to this, there is one hostel in the Rajindra Hospital for doctors/interns.house surgeons.

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital

MCI says no to hike seats in MD MS Courses at Rajindra Hospital (Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital)
News: 4th March, 2014
MCI says no to hike seats in MD MS Courses at Rajindra Hospital
No to more MD seats in ill equipped Patiala College (Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital)
News: 25th February, 2014
No to more MD seats in ill equipped Patiala College
39 Medical Colleges to be upgraded (Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital)
News: 24th February, 2014
39 Medical Colleges to be upgraded

Rs 150 crore plan to upgrade Patiala Medical College (News)
MCI teams inspect Govt Hospital (News)
Phone numbers of govt docs found on slips for provate appointment (News)
Surgeons and Physicians (Job Vacancy)
NRI quota fees will spend on Medical Colleges, Badal (News)
Nurses, paramedics observe strike at Patiala Hospital (News)
Contractual nurses strike cripples Rajindra Hospital (News)
Mega Cancer Screening camp held (News)
Cancer screening camp ends (News)
Mega Screening camp starts (News)
200 crore project for Patiala, Amritsar Medical Colleges (News)
Patiala Hospital renovation takes toll on eye patients (News)
200 crores to two medical colleges granted (News)
Panchayat Mantri Rakhda visit Rajindra (News)
Hostel will be High tech soon (News)
Action against Rajindra Hospital for bad condition of old buildings (News)
Awareness camp (News)
End of difficulties on parking time (News)
Chori chipe bhage Mantri (News)
Chunni Lal Bhagat ignore press conference (News)
Inauguration of state of art machinery (Profile)
Dharna for demands (News)
Radiography training course (Admission Notice)
Radiographer training course (Admission Notice)
Arthi funk pardarshan against Govt (News)
Rajindra Hosp. gets Liquid Oxygen Plant (News)
Contract nurses ko 4 mahine ki salary nahi (News)
AIG ki taang todne wale akali neta ke shahi thath (News)
Free medicines to patients (News)
Need for improvement in hospital (News)
Health secy told to keep an aye on Patiala Hospital proceedings (News)
Free medicine in emergency (News)
hundreds donates blood on World blood donars day (News)
Health department par chappa (News)
Suspend doc for making casteist remarks, SC panel (News)
CM ke adesh par Rajindra me raid (News)
Senior Residents posts (Public Notice)
Vacant posts bharne ke liye CM ne di hari jhandi (News)
300 crore on Medical Equipments (News)
Rajindra Hospital refutes organ harvest allegation (News)
Central Health Department visit Rajindra Hospital (News)
CIPS team visit Medical College (News)
Case against Asstt Professor (News)
Pandhi visit Medical College (News)
Pandit Student ke beyan darj kiye (News)
Jaanch ko college pahunche Pandhi (News)
Verka visits Medical College (News)
Profs casteist remark invites SC panels wrath (News)
Asstt Professor ke khilaf karvai (News)
Revealed, rot inside Govt Hospital (Profile)
Swine flu, Rajindra Hospital safety norms (News)
Pardarshan against Imran Hashmi (News)
Govt Medical Colleges me teachers ki kami jald due ki jayegi (News)
Rajindra Hospital ko milenge 150 crore, Parneet Kaur (News)
Sewerage block ke karn employes ne kiya pardarshan (News)
New dharamshala with 200 persons capacity (News)
Patiala, Amritsar medical college me badhengi seats (News)
Rajindra me hoga west ka disposal (News)
MBBS Admission ab NET se (News)
Foreign Machines will repair soon (News)
Paediatric Surgery and Plastic Surgery etc (Admission Notice)
Religious music therapy to treat drug addicts at centres (News)
Punjab for 200 more seats in medical colleges (News)
BSc Students ne lagaya dharna (News)
CM ke Technical Salahkaar achanak Rajindra pahunche (News)
Medical College me MBBS final exam me nakal karvane ke arop (News)
Medical College me agle saaal badhengi PG Course ki 61 seats (News)
Scooter and Cycle etc (Tender)
3 Medical Colleges nu PGI nal jodeya javega (News)
Medical College Cancer di janch wala Punjab da pehla kender baneya (News)
Diploma Course in Pharmacy (Admission Notice)
Blood donars honoured (News)
100 Volunteers and 180 sansthaye sammanit (News)
Patiala college bans cars on campus (News)
Chutti ka pta lagte hi chale gaye doctor (News)
Rajindra Hospital par bacha chori ka arop (News)
Rajendra Hospital me ilaaj mehnga (News)
Let elderly not retire into depression (News)
Lift me fass gaye Bhagat chunni lal, halat kharab (News)
Jab lif me fas gaye bhagat Chunni Lal (News)
Troma centre of 50 Crores (News)
Rajindra me banega 50 crore ka trama centre (News)
Snakes found in linen store of Rajindera Hospital (News)
Patiala me Medical Students bolo no ragging (News)
Govt Medical College vikhe ragging rokan lai 43 membri ragging virodhi daste da gathan (News)
Rajindra Hospital di nursery cho milia pinjar billi da (News)
Rajindra Hospital di nursery cho milia pinjar billi da (News)
Radiographers Training Course (Admission Notice)
Medical Institutes told to pay Rs 52 L dues (News)
Medical Graduates (Public Notice)
More PG seats for medical college (News)
Medical College te Rajindra Hospital lai 122 crore rupaye (News)
Rajindra par kharach honge 150 Crore (News)
Treatment ki nayi taknik batai (News)
Sleep test lab will made in Medical College (News)
Medical Equipment (Tender)
Rajindra Hospital me nai hai Fire Fighting System (News)
Rajindra ki OPD me Tala (News)
Rajindra Hospital me Nurses ne OPD ke bahar ki rally (News)
Treatment ko minte karte rahe Mariz (News)
Ab Rajindra Hospital me ho sakega Liver ka ilaj (News)
Rajindra Hospital and TB Hospital me nurse and karamchariyo ki rally (News)
Nahi dur hui Rajindra Hospital ki badhali (News)
Rajindra Hospital ke mulajim hadtal par (News)
Chotha darja mulajmo ki hadtal (News)
Rajindra ke doctors aaj kaam par lotenge (News)
Chuhe ne Rukvaye Operation (News)
MD di Degree te 6 nave Paira Medical course agle session to shuru kitte jange (News)
Function on National Voluntary Blood Donation Day (News)
Research facilities in Medical College (News)
BSc Medical and MLT Courses (Admission Notice)
BSc in Medical and BSc in MLT (Admission Notice)
New gate at Rajindra Hospital kicks up row (News)
Diploma in Pharmacy Course (Admission Notice)
Rajindra Hospital Patiala vikhe Emergency Project ka udhghatan (News)
College nu upgrade karan de buniyadi dhanche nu hor majbut karan layi 47 crore kharach kitte jange (News)
Admission notice Dpharmacy course (Admission Notice)
Patiala Medical college me badhengi Postgraduate Seats (News)
D Pharmecy Admission Open to Government Medical College (Admission Notice)
Six Lecturers promoted Last year (News)
Alumnus of Patiala medical college gets OBE (News)
MBBS Student Kidnapp in Rajindra Hospital (News)
Medical College Principal doc chargesheeted (News)
Doctor Fired (News)
BDS Counselling held (News)
Bappu VC te Bebe Principal fir dar kahda (News)
Trauma Care Centre is still a distant dream (News)
Rajindra Hospital Patiala bimarian da shikaar (News)
Medical Graduate (Job Vacancy)
Medical College (Advertisement)
Appointment of Surgeon (Public Notice)

Media coverage of Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala Punjab, Punjab

Mohan Sharma Tiwari versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Mohan Sharma Tiwari,
President, Global Human Rights Council,
(R and C) Sub Office, # 739/7,
Gurbax Colony, Patiala,
Punjab.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Medical Superintendent
Govt., Medical College & Rajindra Hospital,
Patiala, Punjab.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2164 of 2010

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Achhar Singh, Deputy M.S. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. In the hearing dated 21.09.2010, Complainant stated that he had not received letter no. 12279 dated 01.09.2010. In today’s hearing, Respondent has brought the record and has submitted that the letter no. 12279 was wrongly written, actually this letter is 12219 which has been received by the Complainant himself.

3. It is observed that Smt. Babita Goyal (ACFA) and Smt. Asha Rani (Suptd.) had not performed their duties regarding providing information under the RTI Act. Information was sought on 18.05.2010, whereas complete information was provided on 01.09.2010. It is recommended that disciplinary action be initiated under service rules applicable as per Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act 2005 against Smt. Babita Goyal (ACFA) and Smt. Asha Rani (Suptd.) for persistently delaying response/ furnishing of information and for non implementation of orders of the Commission.

4. In view of the above, no further cause of action is left and the complaint is closed and disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 19th October, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Mohan Sharma Tiwari versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Mohan Sharma Tiwari,
President, Global Human Rights Council,
(R and C) Sub Office, # 739/7,
Gurbax Colony, Patiala,
Punjab.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Medical Superintendent
Govt., Medical College & Rajindra Hospital,
Patiala, Punjab.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2164 of 2010

Present:
(i) Sh. Mohan Sharma Tiwari, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Achhar Singh, Deputy M.S on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that still complete information has not been provided to him. Complainant has pointed out deficiencies to the Respondent. Respondent is directed to ensure that complete information regarding deficiencies as pointed out by the Complainant be provided to him before the next date of hearing. Respondent has filed the affidavits of Smt. Babita Goyal (ACFA) and Smt. Asha Rani (Suptd.). In the affidavit Smt. Asha Rani (Suptd.) has stated that the remaining information was provided to the Complainant vide letter no. 12279 dated 01.09.10, whereas Complainant states that this letter has not been received by him. Respondent is directed to produce this letter alongwith their proofs vide which it was sent to the Complainant, on the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 19.10.10 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 21st Sept, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Balvir Singh versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

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

Balvir Singh,
House No. 195, Gali No. 4,
Sunder Nagar (SSC Nagar),
Patiala. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Patiala. ….…Respondent

CC No. 2239 of 2010

ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
Representative, Dr. Harinder Singh, Professor, for the Respondent.
____

The RTI application, dated 12.04.2010, addressed to the PIO O/O Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala, is regarding; (1) age of retirement; (2) nature of duty; (3) copy of rules pertaining to Laboratory Attendants. The Respondent sent a reply on 28.04.2010 stating that retirement of Laboratory Attendants is 58 years and regarding nature of duty the information be sought from DRME, Punjab. The complaint to the Commission is dated 14.07.2010.
Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, August 09, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Mohan Sharma Tiwari versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Mohan Sharma Tiwari,
President, Global Human Rights Council,
(R and C) Sub Office, # 739/7,
Gurbax Colony, Patiala,
Punjab.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Medical Superintendent
Govt., Medical College & Rajindra Hospital,
Patiala, Punjab.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2164 of 2010

Present:
(i) Sh. Mohan Sharma Tiwari, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Achhar Singh, Deputy M.S on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that he has been provided information on 03.08.2010 and 04.08.2010. He further states that information provided to him is incomplete. He has provided the deficiencies to the Respondent today in the Commission. Respondent is directed to provide the complete information to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 27.08.2010 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 5th August, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Jagdish Rai Goyal versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Jagdish Rai Goyal
C/o Punjab Medical College,
Near Bus Stand,
Mandi Kilianwali,
Tehsil Malout,
Distt. Muktsar. …..Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Govt. Medical College,
Patiala. …..Respondent

CC- 852/2010
Order

Present:
None for the complainant.
For the respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar (96467-32001)

In this case, complainant vide letter dated 04.12.2009 had sought the status of refund of hostel fee.

Respondent present states that a letter dated 22.05.2010 was sent to the complainant whereby he had been intimated that approval of the A.G. Office had not been received in response to their letter dated 10.11.2009. He further stated that vide letter no. 11684 dated 11.06.2010, it was intimated that the said bill is pending in the treasury. Dr. Vijay Kumar also stated that the bill will be cleared soon after 05.07.2010 up to which date the treasury people are busy making payments of the salary and that even this has been communicated to the complainant.

Sh. Jagdish Rai Goyal is not present and no objections have been pointed out. Respondent present assures the court that the amount of arrears will be paid by the treasury soon after 05.07.2010.

Seeing the merits, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 30.06.2010 State Information Commissioner

Rajiv Lohatbaddi versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
S.CO. NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR-17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Rajiv Lohatbaddi
s/o Sh. Baru Ram
# 45, Adarsh Colony,
Bhadson Road,
Patiala. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Rajindra Hospital & Govt. Medical College,
T.B. Hospital,
Patiala. ---Respondent


C.C. No. 625 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
None for the complainant.
For respondent: Dr. Achhar Singh, PIO (98881-31450), Ms. Jatinder Kaur (93162-01162), APIO, T.B. Hospital, Patiala and Ms. Anita Sharma (98762-19747) from Govt. Medical College, Patiala.

Information to the complainant has been provided by the PIO Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 02.02.2010 and the same has been acknowledged by the complainant. The delay has occurred as the compliant was asked on 10.12.2009 to deposit Rs. 50/- towards charges of the documents which he did not acknowledge. The information has been provided free of cost.

APIO from T.B. Hospital, Patiala Ms. Jatinder Kaur states the complainant Sh. Rajiv Lohatbaddi sent request for information only to the PIO, Rajindra Hospital. A copy of the request was provided to the PIO of T.B. Hospital about 15 days back. Information has been brought to the court but since the complainant is not present, therefore, directions are given to send the same to the complainant by registered post.

PIO from the Medical College, Ms. Anita Sharma states that as in the case of T.B. Hospital, letter seeking information was addressed only to Rajindra Hospital and not to the Medical College. Information has already been sent to the complainant by the PIO of Medical College, Patiala.

Since the original application for information was sent only to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, there does not seem to be any substance in acquiring information from the other two PIOs. Even though I have allowed the information to be provided to the complainant and respondents from the Rajindra Hospital, Medical College and T.B. Hospital are present today, I feel no point in giving another date of hearing, since the information from Rajindra Hospital was provided to the

complainant against his acknowledgment on 02.02.2010.

Complainant is not present today. No objections have been pointed out in the information provided. Therefore, it seems the complainant is satisfied.

Accordingly, the matter is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 26.05.2010 State Information Commissioner

BHUPINDER KUMAR ALIAS BHUPPI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M-14503 of 2009

Date of decision : July 07, 2009

Bhupinder Kumar alias Bhuppi and another ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents

Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

Present :
Mr. Gautam Thapar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab
Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No. 2

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhuppi and Krishan Kumar have filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 186 dated 4.6.2005, under sections
452,323,506,34 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala in view of compromise (Annexure P/1) said to have been effected with complainantrespondent No. 2 Dr. Manjit Singh.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on instructions from respondent No. 2 who is also present in the Court in person states that the parties have effected compromise Annexure P/1 and therefore, respondent
No. 2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offence is not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225.

In the instant case, respondent no. 2 who is Professor in Medical College, Patiala has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 was student of BDS and petitioner No. 2 was
student of MBBS (Internship) at the time of occurrence.

Keeping in view all the circumstances and careers of the petitioners, I deem it fit to quash the impugned FIR in view of the compromise.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. FIR No. 186 dated 4.6.2005, under sections 452,323,506,34 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala (Annexure P/1) is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

( L.N. Mittal )
Judge

RK Gupta versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. R.K. Gupta,
H.No. 291, Sec-13-P,
Hisar-125005.

--Complainant

Vs.
Public Information Officer
O/o Govt. Medical College,
Patiala.
--Respondent


CC No. 2542 of 2008

Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. D.P.Sharma, Deputy Controller – cum- PIO, the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that reply to item no. 3 was sent to the Complainant vide letter no. 1039 dated 15.01.09 through registered post. Complainant is absent. He was also absent on the last hearing. He has not bothered to inform the Commission about his absence for today’s hearing. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent.
3. Disposed of. Copies of the orders be sent to both the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner

Ms Om Prabha versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Ms. Om Prabha, D/O Late Parshotam Ram,
R/O Vill Thai, # 29, Punjabi University,
Patiala. --------Appellant
Vs.
PIO, O/O, Principal,
Medical College, Patiala. ____ Respondent.

AC No-352-2008

Present :
Ms. Om Prabha, Appellant in person.
Sh. O.P.Sharma, PIO-Deputy Controller Medical College, Patiala.
Sh. Ravinder Kumar.

Order :

In compliance with order dated 06.01.2009, the PIO has produced a set of papers with covering letter dated 10.02.2009 stating that the full information asked for by the Appellant is attached. The appointment order supplied is not at all clear and cannot be read. If a clear copy cannot be provided then she can be allowed to get it photo stated from a better machine at her cost (of the Complainant). Covering letter should contain index of papers being supplied with reference to her RTI application duly numbered, page marked and attested. The receipt should be taken from the applicant on the face of the covering letter and photo stat of the full information being given to her should be placed on the record of the Commission.

2. Sh. Ravinder Kumar has given a letter dated nil addressed to the Commission stating that the documents concerning him (her husband) should not be released to Ms. Om Prabha because he has an on-going maintenance case with her and a case regarding dowry also. He states that any documents which she requires should be accessed by her through the court where the matrimonial cases are pending. It is observed that Sh. Ravinder Kumar only has objected to
AC No-352-2008

her procuring the said documents through the Commission under Right to Information Act, 2005, but has no objections to her procuring the same through the court at Patiala where the cases are pending. I do not see the rationale of this argument. It is the right of every citizen of India to procure documents held by a Public Authority in its custody through the Right to Information Act, 2005, subjection to the exemptions specified in Section 8. In any case, these arguments had already been presented by the PIO on the last date of hearing on the basis of the letter which had been addressed to the Principal Medical College by Sh. Ravinder Kumar. It was stated that giving this information to his wife would cause him financial loss and therefore, the information should not be given to her. However, the Commission had already commented on the plea of not giving the information in para 5 of the order dated 06.01.2009. In the meantime, information has been brought by the PIO to be given to her, which the Commission had asked him to give today. By the time a copy had been prepared with covering letter etc. as per directions of the Commission, the Appellant had left with the permission of the Bench, since she had stated that she was to travel back to Patiala and was alone and had a security problem. However, a set of papers for the Commission be placed on the record and other set should be sent to Ms. Om Prabha under registered cover within 15 days. In case, Ms. Om Prabha does not receive the said information within 15 days as directed, she is free to get the case re-opened by filing a simple application before this bench.
With this, the case is hereby disposed of.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
11.02.2009
(LS)

Gurtej Singh versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Gurtej Singh, Chief Pharmacist,
Rajindra Hospital,
Patiala.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Patiala
……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2731 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Gurtej Singh, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Radhey Shyam, Accounts Officer, GMC, Patiala on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant has asked for his G.P.Fund statement. Respondent states that the same has been supplied to him. Complainant is not satisfied. He states only provisional statement has been supplied to him. Respondent states that this provisional statement is as good as original because initially only provisional statement is issued. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 30th January, 2009

RK Gupta versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. R.K. Gupta,
H.No. 291, Sec-13-P,
Hisar-125005.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Govt. Medical College,
Patiala.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2542 of 2008

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. D.P.Sharma, PIO , O/oGovt. Medical College, Patiala, the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant is absent. Respondent states that all the information as asked for by the Complainant in his application dated 03.09.08 has already been supplied. Complainant has written that correct information has not been supplied to him regarding item no. 3 of his application for information. Respondent is directed to supply the correct information as per record to the Complainant within 10 days.

4. Adjourned to 13.02.09 (12.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 9th January, 2009

Ms Om Prabha versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Ms. Om Prabha, D/O Late Parshotam Ram,
R/O Vill Thai, # 29, Punjabi University,
Patiala. --------Complainant
Vs.
PIO, O/O, Principal,
Medical College, Patiala. ____ Respondent.

AC No-352-2008.

Present:
Ms. Om Prabha, Complainant in person.
Sh. O.P.Sharma, PIO-cum-Deputy Controller Finance and Accounts in person.

Order:

Ms. Om Prabha vide her complaint dated 13.10.2008 made to the State Information Commission stated that her application dated 23.08.2008 made to the address of PIO/Principal Medical College, Patiala for information on two points had been refused. She had asked for the copy of the pay slip of Sh. Ravinder Kumar her husband. She had also asked for information/details regarding the appointment of her husband in lieu of his late father serving in that Department on compassionate grounds. The PIO/Deputy Controller Finance and Accounts, office of the Principal Medical College, Patiala referred the matter for advice to the DRME, Punjab, Chandigarh who advised telephonically that according to letter of the PIO dated 14.09.2007, the information was personal. Ms. Om Prabha was fighting a court case against her husband. She should aske for any information she needed through the Court, accordingly the information was refused. Thereafter, she filed an appeal to the Secretary Health Punjab who forwarded the same to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education. The Appellate Authority once again vide their letter dated 19.03.2008 upheld the decision of the PIO. Hence the Second Appeal. A copy of the appeal was sent to the PIO. The date of hearing fixed for 02.12.2008, later changed to 06.01.2009 and both parties informed through registered post.
AC No-352-2008

2. Today, the Complainant and the PIO are present in person. The PIO had stated that Ms. Om Prabha was in receipt of one third of the pay of Sh. Ravinder Kumar already as per the order of the court and as informed by the Drawing & Disbursing Officer of the TB Hospital, Patiala and the department had already informed her that due to the court case, it was not in a position to give her the information for which she should apply to the relevant court where the case is pending. He also showed me copy of the letter of Sh. Ravinder Kumar (copy taken on record) on which the decisions was based.

3. Ms. Om Prabha stated that Sh. Ravinder Kumar had admitted in court to getting a pay of Rs. 10,000/- in the year 2007. She also stated that maintenance was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month in the year 2003 which was revised to 800/- per month in 2006, however, Sh. Ravinder Kumar had not paid any amount for the last six years. Upon this, the court had revised the amount to Rs. 1200/- per month and had also attached one third of the pay. Neither she nor the PIO are in a position to say whether the amount attached is one third of the basic pay or of the gross salary. Copy of the orders of the court in this regard also needs to be taken on the record of the Commission.

4. I have heard both the parties. Under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the rule is for complete disclosure and it is only exceptional cases that the information can be withheld. Those exceptions are listed in Section 8 of the Act. Although it has not been mentioned by the PIO but the information has probably been withheld under Section 8(j) of the Act which states :-
“(j)information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”
AC No-352-2008

5. It is observed that the information applied for is not confidential, personal record of the employee, salaries drawn by each employee form the official record of Government. The employee Sh. Ravinder Kumar has himself given a figure of his pay to the court where the divorce proceedings are pending. He cannot be allowed to conceal it from the Court where the divorce case is pending and the Department cannot be allowed to create impediments in the correct adjudication as per the laws of the State applicable to matrimonial disputes. Not only information regarding the actual pay being drawn by him but also the information of whether he has been appointed on compassionate grounds had also been treated as confidential by the PIO. There is absolutely no reason for refusing the same.

6. The PIO is hereby directed to produce the certified orders of the appointment of Sh. Ravinder Kumar as clerk so that the matter can be settled one way or the other. The PIO should also produce the details of salary w.e.f. 01.01.2009. The pay slip of gross salary and break up including allowances etc. should also be given while clarifying whether it is the Revised or unrevised one. A copy of the order of the court should also be produced and it should be stated clearly at what rate the amount is being deducted. Copy of the form-16 for 2008-09 (financial year) should also be produced. This information is to be provided to Ms. Om Prabha through the court.
Adjourned to 11.02.2009.


Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
06.01.2009
(LS)

PROF DR ASHI R SARIN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CWP 8257 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 04.10.2008

Prof. Dr. Ashi R.Sarin ..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Present :
Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ashwinie Bansal, Advocate for Union of India
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent-State of Punjab

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)
Petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 500 of 1997 filed in the Supreme Court of India, prayed for a mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 in that petition to initiate immediate steps to ban the use of Quinacrine in the form of pellets or otherwise as a method of sterilization. It also prays for a mandamus directing the respondents in the said petition to initiate proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 against all those engaged in the importation, manufacture, transmission, sale and use of the said medicine in the form of pellets or otherwise as a method of sterilization. A mandamus directing the respondents to issue a Notification under Section 26-A of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1945 banning the use of Quinacrine as a method of sterilization was also prayed for. The said petition was, disposed of by the Supreme Court by an order dated March 16, 1998. A copy of the order passed by their Lordship has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 to this writ petition. A reading of that order would
show that the same was based on an affidavit filed by Joint Director in the Directorate General of Health Services, inter-alia, stating that the respondents were taking steps to invoke the provisions of Sections 10-A and 26-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 to prohibit/ban the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of Quinacrine in pellet form and for the use as a contraceptive. The counter affidavit further stated that draft notifications had already been prepared and submitted to the competent authority in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for approval. Copies of that notifications were also enclosed with the affidavit. Taking note of
the said affidavit, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

In view of the stand taken by the Central Government that it is taking steps to ban the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of the drug Quinacrine for use as a method of non surgical sterilization on woman, no further orders are required to be made in this writ petition and we, therefore, consign the writ petition to records as disposed of.

Pursuant to the order mentioned above, the Government of India issued a Notification No. 499(E) dated 14.8.1998 under Section 26-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 prohibiting the import, manufacture,
transmission, sale and use of Quinacrine and its salts in any dosage form for female sterilization or contraception. The present writ petition that purports to have been filed in public interest challenges the validity of the said notifications and prays for a certiorari quashing the same. The petitioner who happens to be a qualified Gynecologist having retired as Professor and Head Deptt. Of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College, Patiala, asserts that the drug in question has been unfairly treated and wrongly prohibited from use, manufacture, sale or import as an ineffective drug for use for the purpose of female sterilization and contraception.

When this writ petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court comprising D.K.Jain, Chief Justice as his lordship then was and Hemant Gupta, J. on 12.7.2005, a direction was issued to the Drug
Controller of India to consider the representation which the petitioner was permitted to make and, to pass an appropriate order on the same within two weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

The petitioner appears to have accordingly filed a representation, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure R-2, addressed to the Drugs Controller General (India), Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi. Upon consideration of the same, the Drugs
Controller General (India) has by an order dated 5.8.2005, reaffirmed the view that the drug in question was a harmful drug as was revealed by the tests and trials conducted on different individuals for female sterilization or contraception. A reading of the order made by the Drugs Controller General, India further shows that Quinacrine has been under investigation for use as method of female sterilization since 1960. Investigators funded primarily by private individual and foundations have, however, produced limited scientific data to support the drugs efficacy or safety for tubal sterilization.

The order further refers to the examination by the ICMR Expert Committee in January, 1993 which after examining the technical data on the drug, recommended limited clinical trials to study the effect of two insertions of Quinacrine of 250 mg each and single insertion of 324 mg. Toxicological Review Panel of ICMR evaluated the clinical data obtained in a limited trial on 8 cases at two centers at Chandigarh and Baroda. The results of these trials were, however, not found satisfactory as out of 8 cases, three cases had failed. The ICMR had, therefore, discontinued the trial. The order also refers to the fact that notification in question had been issued by the Government of India on the recommendations of the Drugs Technical
Advisory Board based on 46th meeting held on 01.12.1997. The said Board, it is noteworthy, is a statutory Board under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is competent to advise the Government on technical matters arising out of the administration of the Act. The Director General has, based on all these facts, observed:-

It is observed from the report published in Population Reports referred to in your letter under point (4),it is observed that the article referred by you itself states that the safety of Quinacrine as sterilization method is still in question. FHI is currently conducting research, including toxicology studies, to determine whether intra-uterine use of Quinacrine poses a risk of
cancer. Results from these studies are expected in 2007.

It has been further stated that some Womens rights groups have opposed Quinacrine on the ground that toxicology and animal studies did not precede clinical trials, which is the established research procedure; that large scale clinical trials began before small safety
studies were complete; and that in some placed women were not informed of its experimental nature or offered other contraceptives.

In the light of the above and the fact that the process of prohibition against the use of the drug in question has gone through trials and is based on opinions of the Experts placing reliance upon scientific data collected from time to time, we see no reason to declare the drug to be safe for use as a contraception or for female sterilization nor do we see any justification for striking down the notification by which the use of said drug has been banned. The question whether a particular drug is or is not safe for use by human beings, is a matter which would require not only Expert opinions to arrive at a correct conclusion, but also data based on scientific
trials and experiments. In the absence of any material to conclusively prove that the drug is safe for female sterilization or contraception, it will be hazardous to make any pronouncement about its efficacy or to reintroduce the user thereof in exercise of judicial power, especially one in purported public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The proper course for the petitioner or even the companies engaged in the manufacture and marketing of the drug in question is to agitate the matter in the
appropriate forum and to present material before the appropriate authorities to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug so that Scientists and Professors who use the drug are persuaded to accept the same as safe and efficacious. The Government can then be requested to introduce the drug again. So long as there is no material or contrary opinion conclusively establishing the safety or efficacy of the drug in question, we find it difficult to issue a direction for reintroduction of the drug. There is no merit in this
petition which fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.

(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE

Dr GS Kang versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Dr. G.S.Kang,
# 397, Phase I,
Urban Estate, Patiala. ......Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Rajendra Medical College,
Patiala .....Respondent.

CC No-1037-of 2008:

Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma, PIO-cum-Deputy Controller, Finance and Accounts, Medical College, Patiala.

Order:

Dr. G.S.Kang vide his complaint dated nil received on 21.05.2008 stated that his application under RTI Act and again dated nil with due payment of fee (no details given) have not been attended to by the PIO/Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Patiala. A copy of the complaint was sent to the concerned PIO. The date of hearing fixed for today and both parties informed by registered post.

2. Today, the PIO is present in person and he has presented a copy of letter dated 13.08.2008 (covering letter) vide which Dr. G.S.Kang has been supplied information vide letter of even date covering all points of his application. Information earlier given to him on 20.05.2008 and on 27.06.2008 has also included although no proof of registry has been produced. PIO is taken at his word. Dr. G.S.Kang had enough and adequate notice of today’s hearing and he has not appeared. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information supplied and has nothing to say.
3. With this, the case is hereby disposed of.

-Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
19.08.2008

Col SS Mann versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.


Col.S.S.Mann (Retd),
#2426, Phase X, Sector 64,
SAS Nagar, Mohali 160064.

----------------------------------------Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Principal,
Medical College, Patiala.

----------------------------------------- Respondent
CC No. 322 of 2006

ORDER

Present Sh. Sohan Lal Bansal, Office Superintendent, Public Information Officer O/o Principal, Medical College, Patiala. None is present on behalf of the Complainant.
The Respondent states that the entire information demanded by the Complainant has since been supplied to him. He states that the Complainant has deposited the requisite fees also.
Accordingly this case is closed and disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.


(Rajan Kashyap)
Chandigarh Chief Information Commissioner
Dated: 18.08.2006


(Surinder Singh)
Information Commissioner

RASHPAL SINGHRATTOL Versus STATE OF PB AND ORS Civil Writ Petition 12787 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: October 30,2006

Dr. Rashpal Singh Rattol V. State of Punjab and others

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Present:
Shri Deepak Sibal,Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General
Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7.
Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Shri Akshay Bhan,Advocate for respondent No.8.

Viney Mittal,J.
Petitioner, Dr. Rashpal Singh Rattol, has challenged the
admission granted to respondent No.8, Dr. Sham Sunder Goyal, in M.D.(Radiodiagnosis). Additionally, the petitioner has challenged order dated August 3,2006, annexure P/17, passed by Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Research,Government of Punjab, respondent No.1, whereby the aforesaid admission granted to respondent No.8 has been upheld.

Petitioner as well as respondent No.8 had appeared in a
common entrance test-PGET,2006 conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, respondent No.4, for admission to P.G.Courses. Both the aforesaid applicants had appeared as “ inservice candidates” being in the service of State Government of Punjab. Whereas petitioner had obtained 376 marks and had been placed at rank No.3,respondent No.8 had obtained 372 marks and was placed at rank No 4 in PCMS-60% quota category. Respondent No.8, at the time of counselling was given four additional marks for rendering rural service over and above three years of minimum rural service required as an eligibility condition for admission under the
aforesaid 60% quota category. Consequently, he was granted admission in MD ( Radiodiagnosis), whereas petitioner was offered admission in M.S.( Orthopedics).

The petitioner claimed that respondent No.8 had not completed such rural service, as to entitle him to have four additional marks and, therefore, he submitted a
representation to the respondent and also the Director, Research and Medical Education, Chairman of the Selection Committee making the aforesaid grievance. It was maintained by the petitioner that respondent No.8 was granted admission on the basis of certificates which were contrary to the factual position and, as such, could not be relied upon. According to the petitioner, certificate
dated June 2,2006 issued by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab,respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.8 was subsequently cancelled and withdrawn vide communication dated June 7,2006. On the basis of the aforesaid withdrawal of the original certificate issued in favour of respondent No.8, petitioner submitted
various other representations bringing the aforesaid fact to the notice of the authorities.

It is claimed by the petitioner that despite the aforesaid
facts having been brought to the notice of the Admission Committee, the admission granted to respondent No.8 was not cancelled. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court through an earlier Writ Petition being C.W.P. No.9522 of 2006 challenging the admission granted to respondent No.8. In the aforesaid writ petition, written statements were filed by the respondents. After
taking into consideration the divergent pleas taken by the parties, vide an order dated July 20,2006, the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to Secretary Medical Education and Research, Punjab to look into the entire matter and take a final and appropriate decision.

In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, the pleas of both the parties were examined by respondent No.1 and record pertaining to the eligibility conditions and additional marks etc. was also examined.

However, vide an order dated August 3,2006, the plea of the petitioner was rejected and the admission granted to
respondent No.8 was upheld. A copy of the order dated August 3,2006 passed by respondent No.1 has been appended as Annexure P/17 with the present petition and is also a subject matter of challenge by the petitioner before this Court.

It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has
approached this court through the present petition.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the
respondents. Separate written statements have been filed by respondents No.1 to 3, respondent No.4, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 8. Various pleas raised by the petitioner have been denied. Admission granted to respondent No.8 in M.D. ( Radiodiagnosis) has been defended.

We have heard Shri Deepak Sibal, learned counsel
appearing or the petitioner, Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General,Punjab for respondent No.1 to 3 and respondents No.5 to 7, Shri Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Baba Farid University and Shri Akshay Bhan, learned counsel appearing for admitted candidate,respondent No.8,
and with the assistance of the learned counsel, have also gone through the record of the case.

At the out set, we may notice that Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has produced before us the original service-book of respondent No.8 indicating his places of posting from the date he joined service. Shri Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and the Counselling Committee has also produced before us record of the counseling committee. We have also gone through the aforesaid record.

Shri Deepak Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has drawn our pointed attention to sub- clauses(ix) and (x) of Clause 15(a) of notification dated March 29,2006 whereby one mark for each completed year of rural service , over and above the three years minimum rural service ( required for eligibility for admission under 60% quota), is required to be given and also as to what could be considered as a rural service on the basis of which aforesaid incentive is to be given. For the sake of ready reference, we may reproduce the aforesaid clauses as below :

“15(a) ( ix). One mark for each completed year of rural service over and above the three year minimum rural service ( required for eligibility for admission under 60% quota) shall be given to PCMS/PCMS(Dental) doctors for admission to Post Graduate Courses. The incentive of additional marks would be available only to those PCMS candidates who have obtained the minimum qualifying marks at PGET- 2006 prescribed for the concerned category. The maximum number of marks irrespective of the total length of rural service shall in no case exceed a total of 5 (five).

(x). The completed years of rural service on the basis of
which incentive is to be given,must have been rendered
at places, which are at least 15 kms or more beyond the
Municipal/City/Notified Area Committee limits. Certificate
to this effect from the concerned Civil Surgeon/Medical
Superintendents of ESI Hospitals/Principal Government
Medical Colleges/Director Health and Family Welfare
Punjab is required to be submitted at the time of application.”

In the backdrop of the aforesaid conditions of the notification, Shri Sibal has referred to the certificate Annexure P/10 dated June 2,2006 whereby, besides a minimum three years of rural service, when respondent No.8 Dr. Sham Sunder Goyal had remained posted at Subsidiary Health Centre (SHC), Giljey Wala for a period from April 28,1998 to April 28,2001, the said respondent
had further remained posted in SHC,Giljey Wala for a period of one year only at that place. Learned counsel has pointed out that the said certificate indicates that respondent No.8 had posted at SHC, Badhai for one year 10 months and at GGS Medical College for six months (
a posting which had also been declared as rural posting vide notification dated February 17,1982); thus, a total additional rural posting of four years and 11 months. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the aforesaid certificate Annexure P/10 was subsequently withdrawn on June 7,2006, when through another certificate Annexure P/12, it was indicated that besides the mandatory posting of three years, respondent No.8 had remained posted at SHC Giljey Wala from April 29,2001 to April 23,2002 i.e.
for 11 months and 26 days and thereafter at SHC Sotha and SHC Badhai for a period of one year 7 months and 1 year 10 months respectively, but both the latter postings were within 11 kms and 8 kms from the municipal limits respectively. Learned counsel has, thus, maintained that the latter postings of respondent No.8 at SHC Sotha and SHC Badhai being not beyond 15 kms of municipal limits
could not be taken into consideration for awarding additional marks to respondent No.8. It is, on the basis of the aforesaid fact, that learned counsel has contended that petitioner being higher in merit in the common entrance test was entitled to admission to M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) in preference to respondent No.8, who was lower in merit and was not entitled to any additional marks.

All the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

Shri Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, which had conducted admission process and counselling, has referred to the stand taken by the University in its written statement. Shri Gupta has pointed out that through notification dated March 29,2006, as modified by
notification dated April 19,2006, issued by the State Government of Punjab, Admission Committee for admission/counselling was constituted comprising of the Principal , Government Medical College,Patiala as the Chairman, Principal of the concerned colleges as member, Registrar of University as another member and
representative of the Welfare Department as also a member. Shri Gupta has conceded that both the petitioner and respondent No.8 had appeared and qualified the test under 60% quota meant for inservice PCMS candidates and that the petitioner had secured 376 marks and was placed at rank No.3, whereas respondent No.8 had secured secured 372 marks and was placed at rank No.4. Shri Gupta has also pointed out to the averments made in Paras 2 and 3 of the short reply filed by the Registrar of the University to the following effect :

“2. “That as regards rural service of respondent No.8, it is submitted that as per service record of respondent No.8, he joined Punjab Civil Medical Services (PCMS) on 28.04.1998 at SHC Giljeywala under PHC Doda, District Muktsar pursuant to order dated 26.04.1998 issued by the Government of Punjab.

He worked there as such upto November 2003.

Thereafter, he was shifted to SHC Badhai under PHC
Chack Sherewala,district Muktsar vide order dated 06.11.2003 endorsed by Civil Surgeon, Muktsar on
13.11.2003. Then respondent No.8 joined GGS Medical
College, Faridkot as Demonstrator in the Department of
Physiology pursuant to order dated 01.09.2005 issued by
the Government of Punjab and from there respondent No.8 has been relieved for the PG Course viz. MD ( Radiodiagnosis), the admission to which has been impugned in the present petition. As per Punjab Government Notification No.7(16)-5HB3-79/2639 dated
17.2.1982 ( Annexure R-4/1) service in the basic
Departments of Physiology, Anatomy, Pharmacology,
Pathology, Biochemistry at Guru Gobind Singh Medical
College, Faridkot is to be considered as rural service. As
such, respondent No.8 has a total period of 8 years, 1
month, 14 days as rural service to his credit viz.

28.4.1998 to 14.7.2006. Of this, Respondent No.8 performed duty in the rural area at SHC Giljeywala from
April 1998 to November 2003 i.e. more than 5 years which is beyond 15 kms of the Municipal Limits. It is, thus, evident that respondent No.8 has more than 5 years of rural service to his credit in terms of clauses 15 (a)(ix) and 15(a) (x) of the State Government notification dated March 29,2006 and therefore, was entitled for grant of additional marks as provided in the said clause viz.

Clause 15(a)(ix). A copy of the proceedings of the second counseling held on 12.6.2006 is attached as Annexure R-4/2. The same speaks for itself.

3. That as stated above, the result of the PGET 2006 was declared on 16.05.2006. The petitioner secured 376 marks and was placed at 3rd rank in the merit list whereas respondent No.8 secured 372 marks and was placed at 4th rank. As respondent No.8 was granted benefit of additional marks in terms of clause 15(a)(ix), he was placed above the petitioner in the merit list of first counselling. The first counselling was held on 26,05,2006 and the said list was displayed on the board.

At that time nobody including the petitioner raised any objection with regard to said list. Respondent No.8 opted
for and was recommended for admission in MD ( Radiodiagnosis) as per merit whereas the petitioner opted for MS (Orthopaedics) and his name was accordingly recommended for the said course by the Admission Committee. A copy of the petitioner's option Form/Declaration as filled and signed by him is attached
as Annexure R-4/3. A perusal of the said declaration shows that the petitioner consciously and expressly accepted admission in MS ( Orthopaedics). Though the
Civil Writ Petition No.12787 of 2006 9 name of the petitioner was recommended for admission in the course of Orthopaedics as aforesaid but for the reasons best known to him he did not deposit the fee for the said course and instead submitted representation disputing the admission of respondent No.8 in the course of MD (Radiodiagnosis). On 12.62006, during the second counselling, the petitioner was advised to deposit the fee
for the course to which he had been admitted. Despite this special concession shown to the petitioner, he did not deposit the fee even on 12.6.2006.Accordingly, the Admission Committee offered the seat in MS
(Orthopaedics) to the next candidate as per merit in the
second counselling.”

On the basis of aforesaid averments, learned counsel
appearing for respondent-University has maintained that respondent No.8 had joined Punjab Civil Medical Service(PCMS) on April 28,1998 at SHC, Giljey Wala in Primary Health Centre(PHC), Doda, District Muktsar in pursuance to an order dated April 26,1998 issued by the State Government of Punjab and had worked at the aforesaid place till November,2003.

Thereafter respondent No.8 was shifted to SHC Badhai vide order dated November 6,2003. Later on in pursuance to order dated September 1,2005, respondent No.8
joined GGS Medical College, Faridkot as Demonstrator in the Department of Physiology. It was from that place that respondent No.8 was relieved when he was admitted to PG Course in MD ( Radiodiagnosis). Learned counsel has also referred to a notification dated February 17,1982 whereby service in the basic Department of Physiology, Anatomy, Pharmacology, Pathology, Biochemistry at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot is to be considered as rural service. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, respondent No.8 had a total service of 8 years 1 month and 14 days as rural service to his credit with effect from April 29,1998 till July 14,2006. After deducting the mandatory service of three years, according to the learned counsel, respondent No.8
has more than five years of rural service to his credit and therefore was entitled to the grant of additional marks.

Learned counsel for the respondent-university has also
referred to the fact that first counseling for admission to PG Course was held on May 26,2006 and, at that point of time, respondent no.8 opted for and was recommended for admission in MD ( radiodiagnosis) as per his merit position, after the additional marks and the petitioner had opted for M.S.(Orthopedics) and his claim was, accordingly, recommended for the said course by the
Admission Committee. A copy of the option form/declaration submitted by the petitioner has been appended as Annexure R-4/3 with the short reply of the University and has been specifically referred to by the learned counsel to show the option expressed by the petitioner.

Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, learned Additional Advocate
General, Punjab has also referred to the service book of the petitioner wherein factual position depicted in the short reply filed by the University is fully supported and substantiated.

Shri Akshay Bhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 has also taken a similar stand. As a matter of fact, respondent No.8 Dr. Sham Sunder Goyal is present in court. On a specific query put to him by the Court, the said respondent has stated that after his initial posting at SHC, Giljeywala under PHC Doda, he had remained posted at Giljeywala but was put on temporary duty by the Senior Medical Officer to SHC Sotha and SHC
Badhai, which Health Centres were also within the jurisdiction and control of the same Senior Medical Officer. The said respondent has specifically maintained that at no point of time he was transferred from SHC Giljeywala. Shri Akshey Bhan, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.8 has also relied upon the service book of the petitioner.

As noticed in the earlier portion of this judgment, besides noticing the various pleas raised by the parties, we have
also gone through the service book of respondent No.8 as well as record of the Admission/Counselling Committee.
From the aforesaid perusal of the service record of respondent No.8 and also the record of the Admission/Counselling Committee, we are satisfied that respondent No.8 had remained posted at SHC, Giljeywala from his initial positing on April 28,1998, when the said respondent had joined PCMS on his first appointment
and had worked at the same place upto November, 2003.

Thereafter respondent No.8 had served for a period of six months as a Demonstrator in the Department of Physiology in GGS Medical College, Faridkot. As per notification dated February 17,1982 even the aforesaid service of respondent No.8 was liable to be treated as
rural service. In these circumstances, respondent No.8 has a total of 8 years, 1 month and 14 days of rural service to his credit i.e. a period of more than 5 years of additional service over and above the period of three years of mandatory rural service, being the eligibility condition. In view of the aforesaid additional service, respondent No.8 was rightly granted additional marks, placing him over and above the merit position of the petitioner.

In these circumstances, we find no merit in the present
Civil Writ Petition No.12787 of 2006 12 petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Viney Mittal )
Judge

( H.S.Bhalla )
Judge

DALJIT SINGH PADDA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS CWP 8194 of 1995


THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P.No.8194 of 1995

Date of Decision: 9 - 8 -2006

Daljit Singh Padda ........Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA

Present:
Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.G.C.Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondents 1 to 3.
Mr.S.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondents 4 to 8.

P.S.PATWALIA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner's name was recommended for appointment as a Clerk to the Director Health Services, Punjab by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Board') vide letter dated 6.12.1957. As a result of the recommendations made by the Board the petitioner was offered appointment as a Clerk in the office of District Medical Officer, Kapurthala where he joined on 5.4.1958. After joining the said post, the petitioner
made a request on 27.10.1960 wherein he mentioned that he had learnt that few posts of Clerks were lying vacant in the office of Director Health Services, Punjab at the Headquarters at Chandigarh. He on the basis of the facts pleaded therein requested that he should be appointed in the Head office. He specifically stated that he was ready to forego the benefit of service rendered by him at Kapurthala towards seniority if he was accommodated in the Head office. The relevant part of the request is as hereunder:-

“In case I am appointed, I am prepared to forego the benefit of my service in this office only towards seniority in the Headquarter's office.”

Accepting this request of the petitioner, by an order dated 14.3.1961 the petitioner was appointed in the main office of the Director Health Services, Punjab as against his earlier appointment in the subordinate office of the Health Department. In the order dated 14.3.1961 a specific condition has been imposed that he would be treated as a new entrant in the cadre of Clerks in the Head office. The relevant condition is as hereunder:-

“3. that he will be treated as new entrant for the purpose of fixation of his seniority on the cadre of this office and will not be given benefit of his service in the subordinate office towards fixation
of his seniority on the cadre of the main office of D.H.S. Punjab.

4. He will not, in the event of his transfer to the main office maintain his name on the seniority list of clerks of subordinate offices and in the event of his being desirous of going back to a subordinate office, he will be given the position at the bottom of the seniority list of clerks of that cadre.”

Accordingly, the tentative seniority list of Clerks in the Health Directorate was circulated on 14.6.1966. The petitioner's name figured at serial
No.69 and his date of entry into service was shown as 31.3.1961. The petitioner claims that he made a representation claiming that he should be granted seniority with effect from 5.4.1958, the date he joined at Kapurthala. This request was
declined by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab by his memo dated 28.6.1967. Thereafter another tentative seniority list of Clerks of Health Directorate was circulated on 7.7.1978 wherein once again the petitioner's date of appointment was reflected as 31.3.1961.

Petitioner made yet another request reiterating his earlier demand of being assigned seniority from 5.4.1958.

However, the said request was again declined on 17.11.1979. It is the case of the petitioner that against this action of the respondents in not granting him seniority from 5.4.1958, he filed a civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed. Against that order of dismissal of the suit, he filed an appeal. He states that when the said appeal was pending, he made yet another representation on 26.2.1986 once again seeking seniority from 5.4.1958.

Accepting the said representation, an order was made on 17.7.1986 whereby it was ordered that after reconsideration the Government had decided that the claim of the official for granting seniority from back date was genuine. Therefore the
seniority of the petitioner was refixed in the Head office from 5.4.1958, the date on which he joined the Health Department. This order was again set aside vide letter dated 3.10.1986 made by the Deputy Secretary, Health. Thus, the petitioner
was left with no option but to approach this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.1480 of 1987.

During the proceedings in the writ petition, the State claimed that the orders passed in favour of the petitioner could not be implemented because
the appeal against dismissal of the civil suit was pending. On this the petitioner withdrew the suit and the appeal. The said orders were placed on the record of which was disposed of with the following observations:-

“Civil Misc.No.3291 of 1987 is allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is permitted to be placed on record.

Mr.Bains learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab has stated that in view of withdrawal of the suit and the appeal filed by the petitioner, the orders communicated vide letter dated July 17,
1986, will be implemented within two months from today. In view of the statement of Mr.Bains, Mr.Sharma, does not press this petition and the same stands disposed of.

Sukhdev Singh Kang
Judge.

M.M.Punchhi
Judge.”

In the meantime certain other employees who would have become junior to the petitioner as a consequence of the orders dated 17.7.1986 filed They prayed that the orders passed in favour of the petitioner were against law and should be quashed. That writ petition was disposed of by
this Court by directing respondent No.1 to redetermine the inter se seniority of the petitioners in that case and the petitioner in the present writ petition within a period of three months.

In order to comply with the orders made in the aforementioned writ petition, a show cause notice was issued to all the affected parties wherein it was stated that prima facie the Government had decided to grant seniority to the petitioner with effect from 5.4.1958. The proceedings commenced as a result of this show cause notice were ultimately concluded in view of a detailed order dated 14.7.1990. In this order the factual position has been noticed. The order appears to have been made after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by this order. Two grounds primarily were taken by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Health and family Welfare which are as hereunder:-

(i) Firstly it was found that the employees working in the office of District Medical Officer, Kapurthala were governed by the Punjab Public Health Department Subordinate Posts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as, `1940 Rules'). On the other hand the staff of the Directorate of Health Services and
Medical Institutions was governed by the Medical Department Subordinate Posts (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1945 (hereinafter to be referred as, `1945 Rules').

Thus, the cadre of the staff of two offices was to be governed by separate set of Rules.

(ii) Secondly it was also recorded that since the petitioner had accepted the offer of appointment in sub office but later on he applied for his transfer to the Head Office and clearly mentioned in his application that in case he was appointed in Head Office, he was prepared to forego the benefit of service rendered by him in the District office towards seniority and on that basis a specific condition was imposed in the order of transfer that the petitioner could not claim the benefit of
seniority. On this basis the request of the petitioner was declined.

The petitioner states that thereafter he claimed seniority from 5.4.1958 by making representations attached as Annexures P-12 and P-13 with this
writ petition. He states that when he did not get any reply to his representations, he was left with no other option except to again file Civil Writ Petition No.2301 of 1992. In that writ petition, he prayed for a mandate to the State of Punjab to
decide the aforementioned representations. The writ petition was disposed of on 17.2.1992 with a direction to consider the representations filed by the petitioner in accordance with rules and instructions. According to the petitioner the direction of this Court was not complied with by the State. As a result he again approached this Court by way of a contempt petition. In contempt petition ultimately an order was supplied to him vide which his representations were stated to have been rejected. The said order is attached with this writ petition as Annexure P-15 and
reads as hereunder:-

“Sh.Daljit Singh Padda, Superintendent o/o DRME Punjab has sent reminders to give effect to his past service towards seniority.

Hon'ble Adviser to Governor has desired to see this case.

In this regard it is submitted that appeal of Sh.Daljit Singh Padda was received vide CP/802-900 which was considered at page 122-123 (L.F.) Hon'ble Adviser to Governor has already seen this
case on 6-5-1991. However it is submitted that all the points raised by Sh.Padda was considered by the competent authority and offer careful scrutiny of the case as well as the direction issued by the
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court his case was rejected and his representation/appeal was filed. Therefore, this representation of Sh.Padda does not merit any consideration and may be filed. This case may be shown to Hon'ble Adviser (O)/governor, Punjab with reference to his orders at Op/38.”

It is the aforementioned order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

State of Punjab has filed a detailed reply opposing the petition. A separate written statement has been filed by the private respondents as well.
The petitioner has filed a replication to the written statement filed by the State Government. In the replication besides reiterating the facts mentioned in the writ petition he has placed on record certain orders as Annexures P-19 to P-24 relying upon which the petitioner contends that he has been discriminated.

I have heard Mr.Dinesh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.G.C.Gupta learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.S.P.Sharma learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. I have also gone through the voluminous record of this writ petition.

At the outset before commencement of arguments, it was pointed out to me that the petitioner as also the contesting respondents have since retired from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the State Government had itself decided to give him seniority vide Annexures P-8 and P-9,
the Government could not resile from those orders. Merely because the officer who had passed the orders had been transferred could not be a ground for the successor to take a different view in the matter. He further stated that he was
entitled to seniority as per instructions circulated by the State Government on 15.3.1962 as modified on 8.9.1968. He further stated that in fact the petitioner had been discriminated. Certain other persons have been given seniority from the dates of their initial appointment. Lastly he submitted that at this stage no third party rights are involved and therefore even if the petitioner is assigned seniority from 5.4.1958 no other person's rights would be adversely affected. Learned counsel also submits that at the time of his initial appointment no option had been sought
as to whether he wanted to work in field office or in Head office and hence he cannot now be treated unfairly.

Apart from these contentions raised in the petition, at the time when arguments were concluded, learned counsel drew my attention to Annexure R-4/7 showing the confirmation of the petitioner on 12.10.1966. By the same order one Shri Balwant Singh, Clerk was also confirmed. The learned counsel thereafter referred to Annexure P-6 which is a tentative seniority list. In that list the date of
birth of the petitioner is January 10, 1938 and that of Balwant Singh January 3, 1941. On the basis of these facts and relying on Rule 7 of 1945 Rules the petitioner contended that the seniority is to be fixed from the date of confirmation.

The rule further envisages that if two persons are recruited by direct recruitment from the same selection, the older person would be senior to the younger person. On a reading of Annexure R-4/7 and Annexures P-4 and P-6 the petitioner contends that since he and Balwant Singh were confirmed on the same date, he should have been shown senior to Balwant Singh. The petitioner, however, admitted that this plea had not been raised in the writ petition.

At the outset, I would first deal with this contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the admitted position that this claim has not been
made in the petition. The respondents have therefore no occasion to meet this claim. As per this contention the seniority should be fixed in terms of Rule 7 of 1945 Rules from the date of confirmation. Factually, however, the various
seniority lists on the record that this was not done. A perusal of two lists attached as Annexures P-6 and P-12 reveal that seniority has been determined taking into account the date of entry of the employee into Government service. These
seniority lists have been implemented and all promotions have been made on the basis of these lists. Annexure P-6 was circulated in July, 1978 which is almost three decades ago. Today it is too late in the day to upset the same specially when
almost all employees would have retired. To do so would create a complete chaos in the Department. Moreover, if the lists were to be challenged proper pleadings should have been there in the petition. All affected persons would have to be impleaded as parties. Thus, I am of the opinion that since this contention was not raised in the petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same orally.

This is all the more so when today almost three decades had elapsed since the seniority was determined vide Anneuxre P-6. This contention of the petitioner is therefore rejected.

On merits the petitioner submits that once the State Government had decided to give him seniority vide Annexures P-8 and P-9, the Government could not have resiled from those orders merely because the officer who had passed the aforementioned order was transferred and succeeded by another officer. An examination of the facts of this case would show that the petitioner was transferred from the District office to the Head office on his own request. He had specifically stated that he would forego the benefit of his service rendered by him at Kapurthala if he was accommodated in the Head office. It is on this basis that the order of transfer dated 14.3.1961 was passed wherein a specific condition was imposed that he would be treated as a new entrant in the Head office for the purpose of fixation of his seniority. The staff in the office of District Medical Officer, Kapurthala was governed by 1940 Rules and the staff of the Head office was governed by 1945 Rules. The cadre of the two offices were different being governed by separate set of rules. In view of the request of the petitioner and the specific order passed by the Government transferring him on the condition that his
appointment in the Head office would be fresh appointment and also in the view of the fact that two cadres are different and governed by separate set of rules, I find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he should be given
seniority in the Head office with effect from the date of his original appointment in the District office at Kapurthala.

There is another aspect of the matter. After the order passed in filed by the petitioner and the order passed in passed on a writ petition filed by other employees who became junior to the petitioner as a result of granting him seniority from the date of his original appointment, the matter was examined by the Government.

Show cause notices were given to the affected parties and ultimately a detailed order dated 14.7.1990 was passed. In this order, the entire factual position is noted in detail and the representation of the petitioner was rejected by giving detailed reasons. Even though this order has been placed on the petition as Annexure P-11, there is no challenge to the same in the writ petition. I am of the opinion that with the issuance of this order dated 14.7.1990 the issue regarding seniority was finally decided against the petitioner by the Government. The order Annexure P-15 only states that all the points raised by Shri Padda were considered by the competent authority and after careful scrutiny of the case as well as the directions issued by this Court, his case had been rejected. This obviously refers to the order Annexure P-11. In the absence of any challenge to Annexure P-11, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition.

The petitioner has sought to make out his case relying on instructions dated 15.3.1962 read with instructions dated 8.9.1986. I have gone through the said instructions which are attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2. The instructions dated 15.3.1962 deals with determination of seniority of candidates recruited by the Board. The instructions state that some times letters of recommendations sent by the Board get delayed in transit or reach their destinations late thereby causing undue hardship to the candidates.

Therefore the Government had decided that the
seniority of the candidates should be determined on the issue of recommendations of the Board. The instructions further state that in case officials are recommended to one office for regular appointment but are allowed to remain in another office where they are already working, their seniority would be determined with reference to the date of Board's original recommendations for their regular absorption in the other offices. I am of the opinion that the said instructions have absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. The instructions dated 8.9.1986 clarifies the instructions dated 15.3.1962. The instructions state that when an employee is recommended by the Board for regular appointment in a particular department but is not appointed to the Department where his name is
recommended and later on is appointed in an office where candidates selected along with him had joined, then he would get his seniority on the basis of his merit in the list sent by the Board even though the date of appointment of various candidates appointed with him may not be the same. This is also not the situation herein. Here the petitioner had been recommended for appointment to the Department of Health and Family Welfare. He had been appointed in the same Department. However, he thereafter requested for change of his cadre from the District office to the Head office. It is that request which was accepted. Thus, the plea of the petitioner on the basis of these instructions also cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had been discriminated. He relied upon certain orders placed on record as Annexures P-19 to P-24 along with the replication. A reading of order
Annexure P-19 would show that by the said order one Jagdish Ram, Clerk attached to the Accounts Branch of the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab was transferred to the office of Principal, Medical College Patiala. This order does not
show that it was a case of transfer from a District office to the Head office. A reading of orders Annexures P-20 and P-21 would reveal that these are regarding transfer of one Shri Naurata Ram, Clerk from Ayurveda Wing of the Directorate to the clerical cadre of the main office. While in the earlier order it was stated that Shri Naurata Ram would be treated as a new entrant for the purpose of seniority but subsequently that clause was deleted. Again this is not a case for transfer from
District office to the Head office. From a reading of the orders, it is not possible to ascertain whether factual position regarding Shri Naurata Ram was the same as that of the petitioner. Similarly orders Annexures P-22 to P-24 deal with transfer of Kamlesh Kumari to the office of Civil Surgeon, Bathinda from the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Again the factual position regarding her transfer is not clear. In view of the fact that on an independent examination of the
petitioner's case it transpires that the petitioner's transfer from the District office to the Head office was on his own request whereby he had undertaken to lose his seniority and the transfer order also incorporated the same condition, it is not possible to hold that the case of the aforesaid employees is at par with that of the petitioner and that the petitioner has been discriminated. This is all the more so when it is apparent that the Head office cadre is a separate cadre governed by
separate set of rules from the District cadre. Thus, the plea of the petitioner on the basis of discrimination also cannot be sustained.

Equally so I find no merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that no option had been sought for as to whether he wants to
work in field office or head office. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that petitioner at the stage of his initial appointment had ever raised any objection that he should have been appointed in the Head office. Now at this
stage, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to raise any such contention in view of the detailed facts recapitulated in this judgment
.
For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition.

The same is therefore dismissed. In the circumstances of this case there shall, however, be no order as to costs.

( P.S.PATWALIA )
JUDGE

Shri Gurpiar Singh Bhatti versus Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Gurpiar Singh Bhatti

Vs.

Rajindra Hospital Patiala

Complaint Case No. CC-742 -2006:

Present:
Shri Gurpiar Singh, complainant in person.
Dr.Bhardwaj, Head of the Deptt. (X-Ray De[tt)
Govt. Medical College, Patiala.

Order:

Public Information Officer of the respondent-deptt. is not present in Court today. Dr. Bhardwaj appearing for the P.I.O. has no written authority from the P.I.O. to represent case.

2 The complainant had filed the complaint dated November 13, 2006 seeking information from the Head of the X-Ray Department on 19 points.

3 On November 16, 2006, the Commission had sent a registered notice to the P.I.O./X-Ray Department asking for response enclosing copy of the complaint and its enclosures, but no response was received in the Commission.

4. Dr. Bhardwaj appearing for the respondent explains that Shri Sohan Lal is the Public Information Officer inn the Govt. Medical College, Patiala. Let fresh notice issue to Shri Sohan Lal Public Information Officer, Govt. Medical Hospital & College, Patiala for April 25, 2007.

Adjourned to April 25, 2007.

SD:
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
March 07, 2006. State Information Commissioner

Devinder Pal Singh Bagga vs State of Punjab etc CWP 1022 of 2008

Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 11th April, 2008

Devinder Pal Singh Bagga … Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab etc. … Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:
Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG Punjab for the State.
Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.
Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with
Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.4.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
In the present writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of
admission of respondent No.4, Sh. Manjit Singh in the course of M.S./
Orthopedics in Government Medical College, Patiala through its Principal,
respondent No.5 under the scheduled caste category being illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to clause 14 and 28 read with clause 30 of the prospectus as
according to the petitioner, the seat should have accrued to the petitioner,
and fall under the category of riot victims. A further prayer was made that a
writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondent No.2,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and respondent No.3,
Admission Committee, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot
to grant admission to the petitioner.

Petitioner had successfully passed MBBS examination in the year 2005 by securing 1st division. Petitioner also claims that on the basis of certificate (Annexure P-1), he is entitled to be considered in the category of riot effected victims.

Respondent University issued a prospectus for admission to the course of MD/MS/PG Diploma, MDS and DM/M.Ch courses for the academic session 2007-08. According to the petitioner, out of the total seats in the part B of the prospectus, for Government institutions 50 per cent of the same were to be filled up by the Government of India on all India basis through All India Competitive Entrance Test. The remaining seats were to be filed up through the Post Graduate Entrance Test, 2007 (PGET-2007). Out of these seats, 60 per cent were to be filled up from amongst the in-service (PCMS/ PCMS Dental and PDES) candidates and 40 per cent from the open category. As per the prospectus, two per cent seats were reserved for wards of terrorism/ riot affected persons. It has been stated in the writ petition that as per percentage of 2 per cent, 3 seats fell to the quota of wards of terrorism/ riot affected persons. 2 sets fell in the quota of 60 per cent and one seat fell in the quota of 40 per cent, i.e. category to which petitioner belonged.

In the Entrance Test, petitioner secured 181 position and was placed at Sr. No. 2 under the riot affected category. It has been contended before us by the petitioner that in the category of terrorism/ riot victims, there were 2 seats available in the course of M.D./ Orthopedics and only 1 seat existed for the riot affected victim under the stream of MD (Gynae).

Since the petitioner was at No.2 in the 40 per cent quota, where only 1 seat
existed as per reservation for riot affected victims, he could not be selected. Against the 2 seats for the riot victims to the post of M.D./ Orthopedics and 2 seats for sports category, nobody managed to secure 50 per cent of the marks, therefore these seats could not be filled up.

The 2 seats existing in the stream of M.S./Orthopedics under 60 per cent quota in sports category were de-reserved and since there was no one available, same were offered to candidates in 40 per cent general category quota, which were subsequently filled up. However, 2 seats under the riot affected category which existed in M.S./Orthopedics stream under 60 per cent category were de-reserved and were offered to eligible candidates under 60 per cent quota in general category. One of these seats was accepted by a general category candidate. Since no other eligible candidate was available, grievance of the petitioner is that instead of shifting the same to riot affected category in 40 per cent quota, the same has been arbitrarily and illegally transferred to scheduled caste category to respondent No.4 and hence petitioner who was available against the riot affected victims category, has been denied admission even though he was available at No.2 as the No.1 had already got admission under this category in 40 per cent quota.

Mr. T.S.Dhindsa appearing for the University has drawn our attention to clause 14(c)(i) and the same is reproduced below:

“(c) Conditions Which Apply To Both 60% (PCMS) And 40% (Open) Category
i. After filling up seats under 60% quota, including candidates against de-reserved seats in case of non availability of concerned category candidates, if any, the vacant seats shall be offered to the eligible candidates under 40%
quota and vice-versa.”

It has been contended by Mr.Dhindsa that while filling up the above seats under the 60 per cent quota, if the candidates are not available then the seats are to be de-reserved and thereafter vacant seats are to be offered to eligible candidates under 40 per cent quota and vice versa, meaning thereby if 2 persons under the category of wards of terrorism/ riot affected persons are not available the first process of dereservation has to take place. Mr.Dhindsa has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kamal Sachdeva v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, CWP No. 10007 of 2003 decided on 16.01.2004, wherein the following question was posed:

“Whether the seats reserved for sports persons against 60% quota of in-service PCMS/PCMS (Dental)/ PDES doctors which remained unfilled due to non-availability of the candidates of reserved category are liable to be transferred
and offered to the sports persons of open category despite the availability of general category candidates of 60% quota is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

After considering the rival submissions in Kamal Sachdeva’s Judgment (supra) the bench held as under:

“Note-1 appearing below paragraphs 3 envisaged that seats of 60% quota remaining vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidates would be offered to the eligible candidates under 40% quota. Similarly, the vacant seats of 40% quota remaining unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates of that quota were to be offered to the candidates of 60% quota. To put it differently, the vacant seats earmarked for in-service doctors could be offered to the open
category candidates and vice-versa only if the eligible candidates of the particular category were not available.

Paragraph 8 of the notification which provides for reservation of seats for different categories including sports persons does not contemplate transfer of reserved seat of one quota to the other quota. This being the position, the petitioner, who had applied for and appeared in P.G.E.T.-2003 as an open
category candidate cannot seek admission against the vacant seats of 60% quota reserved for sports persons because as per the undisputed factual position put forward by the parties, large number of eligible candidates of 60% quota are available for admission against unfilled reserved seats.”

In the above said judgment, it was also concluded that after the de-reservation of the quota in 60 per cent in-service candidates category, reserved category seats are not to be transferred to 40 per cent quota as de-reservation is to be adhered to Kamal Sachdeva’s judgment (supra) apply to the facts of this case.

In view of the ratio of the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE



Some other Colleges in Punjab
Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Hospital and Research Institute, Ludhiana
Sector 40, Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road
Ludhiana (District Ludhiana)
Punjab
Punjabi University Guru Kashi Regional Centre, Bathinda

Bathinda (District Bathinda)
Punjab
Lord Mahavir College of Education, Hamirgarh Village
Moonak-Patran Road
Hamirgarh Village (District Sangrur)
Punjab
Directorate of Sports Punjab, Chandigarh

Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Punjab
Animal Health Institute, Jalandhar
AHI Ladowali Road
Jalandhar (District Jalandhar)
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