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


Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot, Punjab



Contact


Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot, Punjab
Address:Kotakapura Road, Sadiq Road,
26-GGS Medical College Campus
Faridkot (District Faridkot)
Punjab, India
Pin Code : 151203


Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab is a University recognised by UGC.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab is situated in Faridkot of Punjab state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Faridkot comes under Faridkot Tehsil, Faridkot District.

Fax # of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab is +91-1639-256234.

email ID(s) is Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot Punjab

Website of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab is www.bfuhs.ac.in.

Vice Chancellor : Shavinder Singh Shergill Tel : 01639 256232 / 256236(O)252233(R).

Registrar : Tel : 01639 257885(O)250060(R).


Contact Details of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab are : Telephone: +91-1639-257885, 250060, 256232, 256236, 252233, 257885, 251121
Previous Registrar: Piara Lal Garg
Another website: www.babafariduniv.com

University established a cancer hospital in Bathinda. Dr MK Mahajan appointed as Director in January 2014.


Courses

Nursing, Medical Courses


Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab runs course(s) in Nursing, Medical stream(s).

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS)

College relax criteria to fill BDS seats (Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS))
News: 29th September, 2014
College relax criteria to fill BDS seats
BFUHS ne kandh wich chin ditte niyam (Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS))
News: 28th September, 2014
BFUHS ne kandh wich chin ditte niyam

BFUHS de VC vallo Medical council nu letter (News)
Appointments at Health Varsity come under lens (News)
MBBS and BDS counselling ka virodh (News)
PIMT clear karane ka jhansa dekar thagi (News)
Diploma in Paramedical course (Admission Notice)
Students will locked college gate today (News)
Super speciality course 2014 (Admission Notice)
Two allowed MBBS counselling on HC orders (News)
Hefty fee keeps MBBS mgmt seats vacant (News)
BFUHS for relocating students of Pathankot College (News)
221 MBBS reserved seats shifted to general category (News)
Medical University grant commission banane ki maang (News)
221 MBBS reserved seats now in general category (News)
Differences over norms for admission to MBBS (News)
Panel fails to decide on criteria relaxation (News)
No relaxation for reserved catagories, MBBS (News)
MBBS and BDS Course (Admission Notice)
MCI sends 150 medical college students back to BFUHS (News)
Karan tops BFUHS in BDS 2 Exam (News)
Allegation on MBBS admissions (News)
BFU will get special exam of 800 students (News)
Students celebrate black day (News)
HC directs BFUHS to admit student who could not fill form (News)
Doctoring eligibility (Advertisement)
Punjab Govt criteria for 85 percent quota upheld (News)
Plus 2 schooling from state must for admission in MBBS (News)
BDS admisson delayed despite govt orders (News)
121 seats of MBBS vacant (News)
13 days on, BFUHS fails to upload MBBS counselling result (News)
Relax MBBS admission criteria, Punjab (News)
Varsity, govt in blame game over letter seeking relaxation in norms (News)
Lowering eligibility for MBBS admissions decried (News)
MBBS and BDS seats increased (News)
650 seats increased (News)
Study finds bird droppings can kill mosquioes (News)
University depends upon third counselling for filling 322 seats of MBBS (Counselling)
Punjab losing Rs 100 crore over vacant NRI seats (News)
50 percent MBBS seats await eligible takers (News)
Parents of MBBS aspirants meet Sukhbir against criteria relaxation (News)
Memo to Faridkot varsity VC against lowering of bar for NRIs (News)
Adesh University skip BFUHS counselling (News)
BFUHS to hold 2nd counselling for AU (News)
Medical admission row, AU skips BFUHS counselling (News)
550 seats bharn lai vakhri examination lai di khabar gumrahkun, VC (News)
BFUHS want admission criteria relaxed (News)
Dual counselling for medical seats challenged in HC (News)
BSc Nursing course (Admission Notice)
Parents of Medical aspirants meet BFUHS authorities (News)
Parents meet VC for admissions (News)
Parents of MBBS students met to VC (News)
Class X outsider students eligible for medical courses (News)
Ease norms to fill BDS seats (News)
Students not shown interest in BFUHS admissions (News)
Associate Professor for Surgery (Job Vacancy)
Colleges worried as 80 percent BDS seats vacant (News)
Adesh turns back students who got seats at BFUHS counsellingh (News)
BFUHS ki aur se MBBS counselling sahi krar (News)
HC order leaves 102 students in apot (News)
Domicile issue mars day 2 of counselling (News)
Junior Engineer and Executive Engineer (Job Vacancy)
Delay on 480 seats distresses aspirants (News)
BFUHS to start counselling today (Counselling)
BFUHS to start counselling today (News)
BFUHS opens clinic for adolescent drug addicts (News)
Allegation of HC on University vacancies (News)
VC clarifies on HC order on appointments (News)
Varsity authorities jittery before MCI team visit (News)
University made rules after HC orders (News)
HC tells govt to waive Class 10 clause (News)
BFUHS vallo galat niyuktia vicharan da bharosa (News)
Manmani par lagaam (News)
Ambiguity over MBBS seats, aspirants worried (News)
HC gives Punjab Govt two days to clear stand on criteria (News)
Medical college tweak admission schedule to ensure uniformity (News)
Senior and Junior Residnet (Job Vacancy)
PPMET 2014 (Entrance Test)
BFUHS tie up with CIAB (News)
Punjab State Medical quota challenged (News)
Paise lene ke baad pehle tarikh badli fir lagai adhuri list (News)
UT not keen on reciprocal arrangement (News)
Punjab Notification on MBBS affects bonafide residents (News)
Punjab eligibility criteria leaves MBBS seat aspirants stunned (News)
Punjab rider on allowing UT students medical quota (News)
Students dharna on University gate (News)
MDS Course (Admission Notice)
Govt ne Baba Farid University de saah ukhade (News)
Dr MK Mahajan elected as Director of Cancer Hospital (News)
BFU signs MoU with venus remedies (News)
Bathinda cancer treatment facility to start work by man (News)
MBBS and BDS course (Admission Notice)
Nurse Assistant (Job Vacancy)
Supply of Pharmacy instruments (Tender)
MSc Nursing admission not met easliyu (News)
Machinery equipments (Tender)
Varisty cant charge registration fee twice (News)
Bachelor of Audiology (Admission Notice)
BFUHS VC assures necessary action (News)
International workshop started (News)
BFUHS, Canadian varsities hunt for answers (News)
Nasha chadao centre will take over in December (News)
Post Basic BSc Nursing (Counselling)
Dr Kuldeep Singh of PMET scam arrested (News)
Fake certificate scam unearthed (News)
Post Basic BSc Nursing Course (Admission Notice)
MBBS admission ke liye entrance 4 may ko (News)
PMT exam compulsory for doctors (News)
Inauguration of Urban Health Centre (News)
BFUHS ke 478 students ko rahat (News)
Regularise BDS admissions, HC (News)
Fleecing of Cancer patients (News)
Inauguration of technical machines in Nuclear Medicine Department (News)
MSc Nursing course (Admission Notice)
GNM Course (Admission Notice)
Supply of Cath Lab (Tender)
Protest against fleecing of cancer patients held outside BFUHS (News)
Physiotherapy equipments (Tender)
BFUHS postpones 2nd round of counselling (News)
Fake death certificate kills qualifying chances (News)
Fake death certificate kills qualifying chances (News)
MBBS Counselling cancelled again (Counselling)
MBBS and BDS Course (Counselling)
Tarn Taran SSP dying to get seat for daughter (News)
Students crowd for MBBS seats (News)
Univ begins 3rd counselling on apex courts directions (News)
HC relief for class 12 passouts from Chandigarh (News)
PMET parisksha ghotale me gavah mukra (News)
Punjab has left medical aspirants in lurch, Cong MLA (News)
Student caught in PMET scam (News)
Medical seats, Row over domicile rages on (News)
Health Sciences Library Network (Tender)
BFU ko HC ka notice (News)
MBBS admissions on wrong declarations (News)
Irregularities in MBBS admission (News)
BFUHS defers counselling for quota seats (News)
Varsity seeks legal opinion (News)
Univ wich admission lai ditte sabut farji hon da khadsha (News)
10th class certificate will seen in MBBS counselling (News)
DC withdraws fake certificate, suspends staff (News)
After killing SSP, DC runs to save his skin (News)
MBBS Counselling, Varsity tweaks norms (Counselling)
Const of Boundary Wall (Tender)
MBBS seats allotted (News)
BDS and MDS Course (Admission Notice)
Confusion over admission to MBBS, BDS course continue (News)
Other states student getting MBBS admission instead of Punjab Students (News)
Rules bye pass in MBBS (News)
Controversy on MBBS counselling (Counselling)
MBBS aspirants seek transparency in counselling (News)
Parents meet medical varsity VC seek transparency in admission (News)
PG Course counselling par hangama (News)
Committee proposes 33 percent hike in MBBS (News)
Pvt Colleges increased MBBS fees (News)
Asstt Professor (Job Vacancy)
NRI medical students can appear for counselling, HC (News)
Upload provisional merit list of MBBS candidates on website (News)
Meeting of Security guard employees with VC (News)
Special test for NRIs for admission to medical colleges (News)
Special test for NRI (News)
MD and MS courses (Counselling)
Punjab me doctors banna hoga mehnga (News)
PCMS docs await PG counselling (News)
Merit not followed by medical colleges (News)
Punjab admit students on basis of NEET merit (News)
Memmorandum to University Officer (News)
Students happy after addition in MBBS seats (News)
Govt Punjab wicho khatam karegi Cancer (News)
MDS and MS (Admission Notice)
PG Diploma in Hospital Engg (Admission Notice)
Varsity directed to issue provisional roll number (News)
457 students ko exam dene ki anumati (News)
HC lets students appear in exams (News)
BDS Students nu mili rahat, HC ne regular kitte (News)
Ayurvedic Recruitment test 2013 (Entrance Test)
Students done top in PPMET test (News)
HC tells state to submit reply by July 4 (News)
Fraud with students future (News)
End of PPMET exam (News)
Only 4091 forms for 4200 seats (News)
Letter claims tampering with marks (News)
PPMET test (Entrance Test)
BDS exam agle hukma tak multavi (News)
Exam put off after HC declines relief to students (News)
Notice to BFUHS (News)
Future of 450 students under risk (News)
Decision of future of 456 BDS students today (News)
Exams ahead but no roll numbers, students in limbo (News)
MBBS seats increased (News)
Health University postpones counselling (News)
MDS and MS courses (Admission Notice)
Employees vallo Universities di halat sudharan lai hadtal (News)
Employees welfare association ne kale bille lgake kitta rosh pargat (News)
Employees dharna for some improvements in University (News)
Principal among three booked for cheating (News)
Certificate course in Nurse Asstt (Admission Notice)
MDS and PG Diploma (Admission Notice)
Workshop on Jaivik vibhinta (News)
Ayurvedic doctors to be recruited soon (News)
Dental Equipments (Tender)
Dental Equipmenrs (Tender)
Dental Equipments and machinery (Tender)
No PG studies in absence of counselling (News)
MD, MS and PG Diploma (Admission Notice)
Dental Equipments (Tender)
Library Network (Tender)
MD and MS Admission Counselling cancelled (News)
MD and MDS Course (Admission Notice)
MD, MS and PG Diploma (Admission Notice)
PG Diploma and MDS Courses (Admission Notice)
BSc Nursing (Admission Notice)
Seminar on Scop of Pharmacy and Healthcare System (News)
Seminar on Health care (News)
Installation of Medical gass pipeline (Tender)
Job Fair (News)
Notice from High Court (News)
456 Admissions passed without PMT (News)
Industrial Reverse Osmosis system (Tender)
Const of Super Speciality blocks (Tender)
Medical Gases Pipeline (Tender)
Practical Answer Sheets (Tender)
Hamesha rahegi purv President ki yaadgar (News)
Conference on importance of Vitamin D (News)
Students ne suicide karne ki di chetavni (News)
University adhikariya di arthi sadak vichale rakh kitta, mitt sayapa (News)
Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Job Vacancy)
University employees union di ikatarta (News)
Nursing Students mangah de samband wich VC nu mile (News)
Sangharsheel Students nu University vallo gallbaat da sadda (News)
Theatre Asstt and Pharmacist etc (Job Vacancy)
Re Const of Boundary wall (Tender)
Re construction of Boundary wall (Tender)
Re Construction of Boundary wall (Tender)
State first genetic lab opens at FU (News)
Const of two wheeler parking (Tender)
Dharna of Asstt Nursing Students (News)
Special repair and upgradation (Tender)
Tohfe wich mili historical building di varsity valllo bhantod (News)
Students ke alag alag mukable karvaye gaye (News)
3 days Science conference (News)
Medical University wich mulajma nu chimbdan lagge bhut (News)
Opening of 3 days Punjab Science Congress (News)
Opening of Chadai chadar and Science Congress (News)
Raj Aggarwal new member of Governing Council (News)
BFUHS me ki gai 176 niyuktiyo ko chunoti (News)
Posts filled by health varsity challenged (News)
Punjab sarkar and University parbhandan ko notice (News)
Baba Farid University me 177 niyuktiyo ko chunoti (News)
Staff Nurse Recruitment Test 2013 (Entrance Test)
Canteen Tables and Three seater Sofa etc (Tender)
PhD Entrance Test 2012 (Entrance Test)
Cleaning material for Hospital and Laundry Plant (Tender)
Marijo ki ankho ke operation karvaye (News)
Medical University cant claim re- registration fee, orders HC (News)
BFUHS Students se 2 baar nahi le sakte Registration fees (News)
Medical mulajim Faridkot ke vidhayak ko mile (News)
Baba Farid University treads with caution (News)
BFUHS begins survey in Faridkot (News)
Badal moots quota in MD for doctors in rural areas (News)
Const of Athletic track (Tender)
Const. of Athletic Track (Tender)
Starting of Youth Fest Program (News)
Sangreh Mehekdiya Paida release (News)
Radiologist and Nuclear Medicine Technologist (Job Vacancy)
MSc in Biochemistry and Anatomy etc (Admission Notice)
Medical University wich Degree vand samaroh (News)
First Annual Convocation 2012 (Convocation)
Master in Physiotherapy (Admission Notice)
PG Diploma in Health and Engg etc (Admission Notice)
University se manga mega medical camp ka kharcha (Job Vacancy)
Sarkar ne kharcha University de utte madheya (News)
Pind Badal de camp ne University nu lai vitti bimari (News)
PPMET 2012 (Entrance Test)
Cultural Program fest 2012 (Advertisement)
PMET 2012 (Entrance Test)
State Colleges to have 460 more MBBS seats (News)
Punjab wich MBBS diya 460 vadaun di aas (News)
MSc Nursing Course (Counselling)
BFUHS VC, three others get Baba Farid Award (News)
2 nd Counselling of baba Farid University (Counselling)
PGET 2012 (Counselling)
Bhagat Chunni Lal di kargujari da bhajpa ne leya gambhir notice (News)
Second round over, 38 NRI seats still vacant (News)
MD, MS and MDS Courses (Counselling)
Parents, aspirants seek centralised counselling (News)
Students in state of confusion (News)
Professor, Senior Residents, asstt Professor and Associate Professor etc (Job Vacancy)
Fresh govt guidelines on MBBS admissions (News)
Pvt colleges rue exodus of Students (News)
State medical colleges last on toppers wish list (News)
Parents allege seats come with price tag (News)
Badal orders filling of vacant NRI seats on PMET merit (News)
Medical College wich seats lai boli 50 lakh te pujji (News)
Amanpreet first in NCC Exam (News)
Pvt Medical colleges to sell seats, Punjab govt paves way (News)
BFUHS warns its docs against pvt practice (News)
Freedom fighter, VC to get honesty award (News)
PMET 2012 (Counselling)
Construction of Urban Health Centre etc (Tender)
Two Apheresis Machines for Blood Bank (Tender)
Aasman nigal gaya ya zamin kha gai survey report (News)
B Pharmacy and M Pharmacy (Admission Notice)
PG Diploma in Engg and Management (Counselling)
MBBS seats on sale in state (News)
Nursing Students against University teachers (News)
Affiliated college de rahe hai galat degrees (News)
Memo to VC on seats under NRI quota (News)
Refractionist, Lecturer, Technical Asstt and Radiographer Tech etc (Job Vacancy)
Construction of Boundary Wall (Tender)
Counselling for NRI seats postpones (News)
MBBS and BDS me admission prakirya shuru (News)
Counselling ke liye pahunchi ladkiyo ke liye langar lagaya (News)
Counselling for 842 MBBS seats starts at Faridkot (News)
3390 take a shot at nursing entrance (News)
Seats 4000, exams me bathe 3390 (News)
Punjab Para Medical Exams de result ajj (News)
Construction of Faculty Residences etc (Tender)
Cut in MBBS seats, students Jittery (News)
Punjab Para Medical Entrance Test 2012 (Entrance Test)
Punjab Para Medical Entrance Test 2012 (Entrance Test)
Senior and Junior Residents (Job Vacancy)
MBBS and BDS Courses (Admission Notice)
Mechanized House Keeping Services etc (Tender)
Notice to varsity for not paying house taxc (News)
Construction of Teaching Block (Tender)
PPMET 2012 (Entrance Test)
12th paas karn wale hun banange doctor (News)
Faulty checking system of BFUHS (News)
Const of boundary wall (Corrigendum)
Varsho se nahi badhi sarkari kote ki MBBS Seats (News)
PG Diploma Course (Admission Notice)
PMET ke farji paper ke taar Kapurthale se jude (News)
Two more arrested in PMET scandel (News)
Police nu Varsity mulajma di milibhugat houn da shak (News)
When Police woke up VC (News)
Three held for duping parents selling 09 DU paper as leaked PMET questions (News)
98 Percent Students ne diya PMT (News)
PMET test ki nakli copies bechne wala giroh kabu (News)
PMET test ki nakli copies bechne wala giroh kabu (News)
Paper leak di afwah ne kaddeya trah (News)
Paper leak ki afwah se hadkamp (News)
PMIT exams ki madad ke liye shehar ki sansthaye teyar (News)
12 hazar umeedwar denge 20 May nu PMET exam (News)
BSc Nursing Course (Admission Notice)
3 days before PMET posters of scam accused on display (News)
Baba Farid University te Medical College nu Notice jari (News)
BSc in Radiotherapy and Medical Radiography etc (Admission Notice)
Aurto me badh rahi hai Cancer ki bimari (News)
Khali kursiya nu sambodhan kita cancer mahira ne (News)
Crora rupaye kharchan de bavjud nahi ruki cancer de marija di khuari (News)
Const of Front and Side Boundary wall (Tender)
Air Conditioners (Tender)
Fate of former president Giani Zail Singhs barrack in hands of varsity (News)
University vallo Giani Jail Singh di yaadgar surakhiat rakhan toh inkaar (News)
Construction of Girls Doctor Hostel (Tender)
Baba Farid University ke cancer kender par kharach ho chuke hai 40 crore (News)
Dujje di tha paper den wala delhi toh giraftar (News)
Theory answer sheets and Practical Answer Books (Tender)
Theory answer sheets and Practical Answer Books (Tender)
Nursing Students de Cultural mukable karvaye (News)
Nursing Students de Cultural mukable karvaye (News)
HC Notice to Babar Farid Varsity on PGET Counselling (News)
Punjab Medical Entrance Test 20 May ko (News)
Punjab Medical Entrance Test 2012 (Entrance Test)
VC of BFUHS more MDS seats required (News)
Baba Farid University vallo Cancer pidta di shnakhat prakirya shuru (News)
Data Entry Operator including Backlog (Job Vacancy)
Data Entry Operator (Job Vacancy)
VC for super speciality courses in medical colleges (News)
Post Graduate ke exam main Kosal and Nidhi Rani aval (News)
Post Graduate dakhila pariksa ke parinam gosit (News)
Dhavan kosal and Nidhi Rani Punab bhar ch aval (News)
Under electronic eye over 2800 medicos appear in PGMET (News)
MD and MS de Exam samapit (News)
Const of Guest House (Tender)
VC de byan di nikhedi (News)
Para Medical Staff Test 2012 (Entrance Test)
MD, MS and M Ch etc (Admission Notice)
Public Invitation (Advertisement)
Post Graduate Entrance Test 2012 (Entrance Test)
Construction of Mess Blocks (Corrigendum)
Anesthesia Delivery System etc (Tender)
PPMET 2011 (Entrance Test)
Apex Locator,Endomotor and Amalgamator etc (Tender)
PMET jaalsaji me ek aur giraftar (News)
Punjab Medical pravesh exam jalsaji mamle me ek aur kabu (News)
University Aelopethi ki research Ayurved me (News)
Punjab Medical Lab Tech Grade II Recruitment Test 2011 (Entrance Test)
Kahani Sangreh Jimmewar Koun lok arpan (News)
PhD Entrance Test 2011 (Entrance Test)
PhD Entrance Test (Entrance Test)
Construction of Mess Block (Tender)
Construction of Mess Block (Tender)
Cancer sambandhi University wich uch padri meeting hoi (News)
Senior citizen desh da bahut kimti sarmaya (News)
Nursing sansthano me Training ki janch ke liye bane Commettiee (News)
Nursing Sansthano me Training ki hogi jaanch (News)
Radiographer and Operation Theatre Assistant etc (Job Vacancy)
Operation Theatre Assistant and Radiographer etc (Job Vacancy)
3 diwasiye workshop sampan (News)
BSc in Radiotherapy and Dialysis Technician etc (Admission Notice)
Punjab Staff Nurses Recruitment Test 2011 (Entrance Test)
Super Specialist Dr teyar honge (News)
Nurses Recruitment Test (Job Vacancy)
Dental Equipment Machinery (Tender)
Dr SS Gill hi rehenge Baba Farid University de VC (News)
BFUHS de VC de seva kaal wich vadha (News)
Vice Chancellor (Job Vacancy)
University Karamchariya vallo kalam chodh hadtal (News)
VC de office agge dharna (News)
Stenographer (Job Vacancy)
Require Stenographer (Job Vacancy)
Stenographer (Job Vacancy)
Medical Officer (Job Vacancy)
Baba Farid University Yog te vadiya Doctors di bharti karan de samarth (News)
India da Sarvotam Cancer Hospital hai Baba Farid University of Health Science (News)
State opposes MCI plan for common entrance test (News)
PG Diploma in Heath Science (Admission Notice)
PG Diploma in Health Science and BSc in Medical Radiology (Admission Notice)
Baba Farid University vadiya Cancer Kender sthapit (News)
Empanelment of Suppliers for Books (Tender)
Printer Cartridges (Tender)
High Court wallo Punjab Sarkar nu Notice (News)
Vivi me milengi adhunik svasthya sevaye (News)
Change in Book Stack (Corrigendum)
Change in the Tender (Corrigendum)
Mukh Mantri vallo pendu khed mele te University di imarat da udhghatan (News)
Baba Farid University da Udhghatan ajj (News)
Baba Farid University da pavitar greh privesh ajj (News)
Mukhyamantri aaj karenge Baba Farid University lokaprit (News)
Xray film Processor and Glass bead Sterilizer etc (Tender)
MBBS BDS Courses begin health univ yet to conduct second counselling (News)
MBBS and BDS (Admission Notice)
Counselling for MBBS and BDS (Counselling)
Theory Answer Books and Practical Answer Books (Tender)
Six Students acquitted for the lack of evidence (News)
Six Students let off in PMET scam (News)
MPT BPT and BMLT Course (Admission Notice)
PCMS recruitment exam postponed (News)
24 Book Stacks (Tender)
Fake certificates scam in Baba Farid varsity (News)
MSc Nursing Course and PMNET 2011 (Admission Notice)
MSc Nursing Course (Admission Notice)
BSc Nursing 1st Counselling (Counselling)
PG Diploma in Hospital Engineering and Management (Admission Notice)
University layi acquire kitti jagah te banangiya Colonia (News)
Master of Audiolgy Speech Language (Admission Notice)
Baba Farid University ne sthapna Diwas manaya (News)
University wallo likhti bharosa mangan ton bhadke Students (News)
More then Hundred Students nu milia MBBS Seats (News)
PMET Counseling vivado me (News)
135 Students get MBBS seats amid tension in first counselling at BFUHS (News)
Counselling layi aye Students ne laya University te dosh (News)
Bachelor of Pharmacy and Master of Pharmacy (Admission Notice)
Bachelor of Pharmacy (Admission Notice)
PPMET 2011 (Admission Notice)
Dental Students ke panchve saal ki fees maaf (News)
MPT and MSc Programme (Admission Notice)
MSc in Physiology and Biochemistry (Admission Notice)
Junior Resident and Dental Technician (Job Vacancy)
2nd Extended Counselling PGET 2011 (Counselling)
BPT BMLT and BSc etc (Admission Notice)
Lecturer on Adhoc Basis (Job Vacancy)
Desh nu majuda halat wich 600 Medical colleges di lod (News)
MET 2011 and PAM CAT 2011 (Entrance Test)
Punjab Medical Entrance Exam sampan (News)
PMET 2011 da admission exam ajj toh (News)
Punjab Para Medical Entrance Test 2011 (Entrance Test)
Doctory kar rahiya 16 Students da admission radd (News)
2nd Counselling PGET (Counselling)
Professors Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in SPM and Surgery (Job Vacancy)
HC pulls up Punjab govt for abysmal standards of medical education (News)
MBBS and BDS Courses (Admission Notice)
PMET now on 8 June (News)
Uranium research BFUHS top priority (News)
M Ch and PGET Course (Admission Notice)
Short Term Tender Notice ()
Baba Farid varsity postpones PMET (News)
PMET postponed new date to be notified later (News)
Varsities ink pact (News)
Medical Officer (Job Vacancy)
BFUHS rejects plea on examinations (News)
UGC di team wallo University da paletha doura (News)
BFUHS to recruit 199 ayurvedic Docs (News)
Professors and Assistant Professors (Job Vacancy)
No data to Confirm effects of uranium (News)
Public Notice (Advertisement)
Cancer hospital planned at Baba Farid University (News)
SuperVisior and Lab Technician etc (Job Vacancy)
PMET 2010 Counselling (Admission Notice)
Driver and Demonstrator (Job Vacancy)
Proffesor Assistant Proffesor and Associate Proffesor etc (Job Vacancy)
Counselling PGET 2010 (Admission Notice)
Baba Farid University ne manaya 12th sthapna diwas (News)
MD BPT MBBS and BAMS etc (Admission Notice)
BFUHS announces centre just three days before (News)
Big questionmark on working of BFUHS (News)
Baba Farid Varsity takes new steps to check cheating in exams (News)
2nd Couselling PGET 2010 ()
Physiotherapy Equipments (Tender)
Punjab Medical Entrance Test (Admission Notice)
Post Graduate Entrance Test ()
Efforts on to restore credibility of Baba Farid University (News)
MBBS , BDS (Admission Notice)
Baba Farid University ne 25 MBBS Munnabhais da bhaanda bhanneya (News)
B.Sc. , B.Ph. T , BMLT , (Admission Notice)
M.Sc (Admission Notice)
MBBS counselling postponed (News)
UG and PG Programmes (Admission Notice)
No government grant for BFUHS (News)
PROFESSORS, LECTURER, DEMONSTRATOR (Job Vacancy)
Fresh Counselling for dental courses (News)
BAMS and BDS (Counselling)
BDS and BAMS (Admission Notice)
PMET records sought (News)
Physiotherapy courses (Admission Notice)
Asstt Professor on adhoc basis (Job Vacancy)
PMET 2003 (Counselling)
DNB Course (Admission Notice)
Biometric Check for PMET Exam (News)
Irregular appointments in Baba Farid varsity (News)
MLAs Son Detained (News)
MPT and M Sc Programmes (Admission Notice)
Medical Science layi Chunoti Krar (News)
Baba Farid varsity V admits paper leak (News)
Baba Farid varsity VC admits to paper leak (News)
Baba Farid Varsity holds back 400 roll numbers (News)
Five held for Question paper leak (News)
Fake certificate racket surfaces in Faridkot varsity (News)
PMET held amid tight vigil (News)
BDS batch in limbo as varsity delays decision on exams (News)
Students varsity in battle over affidavit (News)
Malwa shines in PMET (News)
Counselling for M Sc Nursing postponed (Counselling)
Mistakes in Question Paper cancellation of test sought (News)
Baba Farid University me Dil ki bimariyo sambandhi camp ayojit (News)
Painting me Gurdeep and anmolbir aval (News)
400 rupaye ke liye dosto ne dost ki li jaan (News)
2819 Doctors ne di Masters ka exam (News)
BSc in Radiotherapy and Medical Radiography etc (Admission Notice)
Construction of shed for parking and senate Buildings etc (Tender)
Construction of Treatment Centre (Tender)
Auction for old Buildings (Advertisement)
Historical berak ko sambhalegi University (News)
Losso of crores after closing of PMET test (News)
HC fines BFUHs (News)
Students ke parijano ke liye guest room banaye (News)

Media coverage of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot Punjab, Punjab

Punjab keen to treat cancer patients in State

Taking a step towards the treatment of economically poor patients suffering from cancer, the Punjab government has announced to create a dedicated fund for this purpose in the newly setup Max Super Specialty Health Care Centre Hospital at Bathinda and Mohali.

Addressing a public gathering after inaugurating Rupees 145 crore state-of-the-art Super Specialty Cancer and Cardiac Hospital at Bathinda on Monday, Punjab Chief Minister, Parkash Singh Badal, said that the specific fund would comprise Rupees 3 crore as upfront consideration already paid by the Max Health Care in addition to 5 per cent of gross revenue annually.

This fund would be deposited in the local account of the hospital and managed by the Rogi Kalyan Smiti. It would be exclusively utilized for financing the medical treatment of economically poor patients suffering from cancer.

He said that patients need not to go Delhi, Bikaner and Mumbai for the treatment of Cancer now. Another ultra modern hospital for the treatment of Cancer would be soon established at Bathinda under the supervision and control of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences in view of high incidence of Cancer in this belt. He said a sum of Rupees 60 crore had already been released by the State Government and this prestigious project was in the advanced stage of implementation.

The Chief Minister further added that the State government had already spent Rupees 340 crore for setting up a network of district hospitals, community and primary health centres equipped with the best medical infrastructure. He also mentioned the State Government had already established a corpus fund Rupees 20 crore during the current financial year to provide free treatment to the poor patients suffering from Cancer.

Munish Kumar Seth versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Munish Kumar Seth s/o Shri Sudesh Kumar,
Near Main Post Office, Dhuri, District Sangrur.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot-151203.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 1860 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Munish Seth complainant in person.
Shri Saurabh Garg, Advocate on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER
The Counsel for the respondent submits that they do not have any powers under the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Act to obtain the kind of information which is being sought by the complainant. Besides it is third party information and is purely personal in nature. It is averred that no public interest is involved.

2. I have heard the parties. The respondent is directed to produce a copy of Baba Farid University of Health Science Act on the next date of hearing, which is fixed for 20.10.2011.

3. To come up on 20.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
September 14, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Vijay Arora versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Dr. Vijay Arora, 2808 Gali Lahorian,
Katra Karan Singh, Amritsar-143006. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot -------------Respondent.

AC No. 429 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Kumar, Junior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The appellant has been consistently absenting himself. He was absent on 2.6.2011, then again on 23.6.2011 without intimation and he is again absent today without intimation. Information had been furnished to him vide respondent’s letter No.15358 dated 22.6.2011. The respondent today submits that apart from this, no other information is available with the respondent. Absence of the appellant today and a firm averment by the respondent indicates that information has been furnished to the appellant. Hence, the case is closed.


(R.I. Singh)
July 29, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Punjab turns hard over ragging in Medical institutions

Showing zero tolerance towards the menace of ragging, the Punjab government has issued instructions to all the medical, dental, ayurvedic, homeo, paramedical, and nursing colleges to nominate a nodal officer to check this evil practice.

Disclosing this here on Tuesday, Arunesh Shakir, the Medical Education Minister said that the educational institutions would be duty bound to ensure that no ragging takes place in the Medical institutes. He said that the detailed information regarding the name of the nodal officer would have to be placed at different parts of the institution so that student could easily file a complaint during the hour of need.

He said that as the new session is going to commence and medical institute would have to take special care to check this. In case a ragging case is the reported, the institute should immediately suspend the students from the institution and the hostel.

Shakir asked the Vice Chancellors, Baba Farid University, to make appropriate amendment in the affiliation rules to debar any educational institution that was trying to shield errant students.

The Minister said that any laxity shown by management, administration, principal, faculty or staff in implementing the guidelines of the apex court, would be treated very seriously and would invite stern disciplinary action. He reiterated that management, Principal, and staff to take effective steps to ensure that no new student becomes victim of this wrong practice of ragging.

Vijay Arora versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Dr. Vijay Arora, 2808 Gali Lahorian,
Katra Karan Singh, Amritsar-143006.
-------------Appellant
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot
-------------Respondent.

AC No. 429 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the appellant.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The appellant has sent an e-mail and also a written submission stating that there are deficiencies in the information furnished to him.

2. The respondent is absent without intimation and none has appeared on behalf of the PIO/Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. Issue fresh notice to the parties for 29.7.2011.

3. To come up on 29.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
June 30, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Vijay Arora versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Dr. Vijay Arora, 2808 Gali Lahorian,
Katra Karan Singh, Amritsar-143006. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot -------------Respondent.

AC No. 429 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the appellant.
Shri Gaurav, Junior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

During the course of hearing on 2.6.2011, it had transpired that information being sought by the appellant is held by the Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Science, Faridkot. Hence, notice was issued to PIO of that University, whose representative Shri Gaurav appeared today before the Commission and informed that the information was sent to Dr. Vijay Arora on the address indicated by him in his RTI application. He further submits that a fresh copy of the information has also been sent to him now and he places on record a copy of the same.

2. The appellant is absent without intimation. To give him one opportunity to confirm that he is satisfied with the information, the case is adjourned to 30.6.2011.

3. To come up on 30.6.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
June 23, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner Punjab

Vijay Arora versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Dr. Vijay Arora, 2808 Gali Lahorian,
Katra Karan Singh, Amritsar-143006. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot -------------Respondent.

AC No. 429 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the appellant.
Shri Dheeraj, Junior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The respondent submits letter No.11155 dated 31.5.2011 stating that the information is held by the Selection Committee-cum-Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and as such the request for information has been transferred to the Vice Chancellor of the University. It is, therefore, pleaded that the Director Research and Medical Education may be exempted from further appearance and notice be issued to the Vice Chancellor of the University. I accept the plea of the present respondent. Issue notice to the Vice Chancellor of the University and to the appellant.

2. To come up on 23.6.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
June 2, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner Punjab

Shivendra Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Shivendra Singh, Assistant Librarian,
University College of Nursing, GGS Hospital Campus,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot.

-------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot-151203.

FAA- the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot-151203.

-------------Respondents.

AC No. 256 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Shivinder Singh appellant in person.
Shri Gaurav, Junior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

I have heard the parties at length. Information, as it exists, has been furnished to the information-seeker. However, he wants a confirmation in writing from the respondent that his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2007-08 does not exist on the record. The respondent states that it is a fact that this ACR does not exist.

2. Let the respondent confirm this fact in writing to the information-seeker within a period of 10 days. Regarding query at Sr. No.10, parties agreed that a copy of the charge taking report of present Librarian Shri Rajeev Minhas will also be provided to the appellant.

3. With the above directions, the case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
May 10, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Shivendra Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Shri Shivendra Singh, Assistant Librarian,
University College of Nursing, GGS Hospital Campus,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot.
-------------Appellant
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot-151203.

FAA- the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot-151203.
-------------Respondents.

AC No. 256 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Bhupinder Singh on behalf of the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Kumar, Junior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
The information-seeker sought information vide application dated 3.1.2011 on 10 issues. The respondent says that these were duly replied. However, as the information-seeker pointed out certain deficiencies, a fresh reply was given on 15.4.2011. The plea of the respondent is that all the issues raised by the information-seeker stand duly addressed.

2. The representative of the information-seeker Shri Bupinder Singh, however, seeks an adjournment to take consent of the appellant. Time is allowed.

3. To come up on 10.5.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
April 19, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

NARINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES and OTHERS CIVIL WRIT PETITION 14030 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CIVIL WRIT PETITION 14030 of 2010

DATE OF DECISION : 9.2.2011

Narinder Kumar and another PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others RESPONDENTS

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-
Shri H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3.

MAHESH GROVER, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have
since been permitted to attend the classes in the 4th year and this has redressed the grievance of the petitioners. He has produced a copy of the communication to this effect which is taken on record. He prays that this petition may be disposed of as infructuous.

Ordered accordingly.

(MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE

DR RUBINDERJIT KAUR Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT CWP 6615 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Decided on : 31-01-2011

Dr. Rubinderjit Kaur ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others
....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-
Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal , Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for respondent
Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab

MAHESH GROVER, J
CM No. 16181 of 2011
Allowed as prayed for. Written statement is taken on record.

CWP No. 6615 of 2010
The petitioner claims admission in the Post Graduation course
from Baba Farid University of Health Science, Faridkot. 51 seats were reserved for candidates who are serving as doctors and belong to PCMS cadre. The petitioner who fulfilled all the eligibility conditions competed for the exam against 60 % of PCMS quota. The petitioner scored 399 marks out of total of 800 marks implying thereby one mark was less than 400 marks which are cut off marks specified by the University. She was thus not considered for the post. Only 4 persons qualified and remaining seats were converted into general quota and since been filled up.

Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed their reply in which they have stated that entire year has gone by now and seats have since been filled up and petitioner with 399 marks could not be granted the benefit of consideration as there was no provision to round up the percentage from 49.87% to 50%.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that as on today no benefit can be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that entire session of one year has gone by and the seats have since been filled up. The brochure for the next year is likely to come out in February, 2011 and if the petitioner, even if her prayer is accepted, cannot be granted admission to the course which is yet to be started, as there will be other candidates who will be eligible and if the
petitioner is desirous of getting admission, he may compete for the course which is likely to be thrown upon in February, 2011.

Dismissed.

(Mahesh Grover)
Judge

MANBIR KAUR and ORS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Civil Writ Petition 13280 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Date of decision: 28.01.2011

Manbir Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumeet Abrol, AAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

RANJIT SINGH J.
This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11664 (Pawanpreet Kaur versus State of Punjab and another) and 13280 of 2010 (Manbir Kaur and others versus State of Punjab and another).

These two writ petitions have been filed by three students, who have remained unsuccessful in getting admission to MBBS course, entrance tests for which were conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Science, Faridkot. Manbir Kaur and Ravneet Kaur are the two petitioners in CWP No. 13820 of 2010 whereas Pawanpreet Kaur is the single petitioner in the CWP No. 11664 of 2010. All the three petitioners in both the petitions had initially filed writ petition to claim admission in the category of wards of terrorist affected person for which one percent seats were reserved as per the prospectus. The initial issue that confronted the petitioners for grant of admission was whether they could be validly considered in this category of being the wards of those killed in terrorist action as they are grandchildren of a person who was killed in terrorist action in Punjab or in riots outside Punjab. When this issue arose before a Division Bench of this Court, a reliance was made to a Division Bench of this Court passed on 31.08.2007, which was as under:-

The petitioner seeks a direction for admission to MBBS course against reserved category for Tsunami victims.

The case of the petitioner is that in the prospectus, there is a Clause for reservation for Tsunami victims to the following effect.

X) Tsunami Victims: 1%

Note:
The reservation under Tsunami victims category shall be available only to the wards/children of all ex-servicemen settlers of Campbell Bay Island in Andaman & Nicobar.

The petitioner is grand-daughter of Sh. Jagjit Singh Gill who was serving the Indian Army and retired in the year 1961. Under the scheme of reservation for exservicemen personnel in Andaman and Nicobar Island, he was allotted land and got settled there in the year 1969. He suffered loss during Tsunami tragedy.

The claim has been opposed on the ground that reservation was only for “Ward/Children” which did not include grand children.

Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that all the ex-servicemen settlers for whom reservation has been extended, were settled in the year 1969 and 1971 and not thereafter and in that regard if grand child is excluded, the reservation will be futile as the exservicemen settled in the year 1969-1971, will not have their immediate children eligible for admission.

In addition to above, learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to averments made in para 7(i) of the writ petition giving particulars of grand children of exservicemen who were given admission in the said category.

Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the particulars given in the petition but only point out that this interpretation was taken last year.

Having regard to the fact that the interpretation now taken will be inconsistent with the interpretation earlier taken and will render the provisions in the prospectus for the reservation for Tsunami Victims futile, we direct that the petitioner be considered eligible as per above clause in the prospectus.

The petition is disposed of.

The Division Bench, prima facie, was not inclined to accept the above noted view and was of the following opinion:-

a) the aforesaid decision rested on the definition of 'Tsunami Victims' and with regard to ex-servicemen settlers who were settled in the year 1969-1971;

b) the aforesaid definition included 'reservation for wards/children' and the present case involves the question of 'reservation for wards'

c) if the aforesaid view of the Division Bench is accepted, this would amount to extend the definition of 'wards'.

Accordingly, we are of the view that this matter deserves to be heard by a Full Bench.

List on 23.8.2010 at 2 PM before a Full Bench.

The matter, therefore, was placed before the Full Bench, which has vide its order dated 15.09.2010 has held that case of the
petitioner being not covered by the reservation clause and the earlier judgment being distinguishable, the question has to be answered against her. Thus, the question referred to the Full Bench was decided against the petitioner and the directions were issued for listing the writ petition before appropriate Bench for further orders.

Above being the position, obviously the writ petition of the petitioners was required to be rejected. The petitioners, however, then filed an amended writ petition making a prayer for grant of admission as grandchildren of terrorist affected family. This Court issued a notice in the amended writ petition on 30.09.2010 by noticing the position in detail by passing the following order:-

The petition was originally filed seeking direction for declaring Clause 5C(ii) and (iv) ultra vires as the same have no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved and on the ground of being arbitrary. The matter ultimately came to be referred to a Full Bench and the Full Bench has now held that the petitioner would not be entitled for considering under the category of grand children killed in terrorists action as the breadwinner in these categories would be parents, who are still alive, have not been affected by terrorism. The challenge as made, thus, may
not survive.

Counsel for the petitioner has now filed an amended writ petition. The prayer made in the amended petition is for consideration for grant of admission as grand child of Terrorist Affected Family.

Notice of the amended petition for 05.10.2010.

Mr. Manoj Bajaj, DAG, Punjab, Mr. Saurabh, Advocate and
Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate &
Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 respectively.

Dasti notices of the amended petition to the remaining respondents for 05.10.2010.

In the amended writ petition, three private respondents namely Ramanvir Singh, Manpreet Kohli and J.S. Dhariwal were also
impleaded as they had been selected in the category of terrorist
victim. The submission now is that wards of terrorists affected person is the one category as per the prospectus and persons killed in terrorist action in Punjab/riots outside Punjab and those affected by terrorists, riots and displaced persons form part of one category. As per the petitioner, only preference was to be given to the wards of persons killed in terrorist action and not that these would be two separate categories. Mr. Sibal, in this regard, has placed strong reliance on paragraph 5 (vi) of the prospectus, which provide for reservation. This para of the prospectus is as under:-

(vi) Wards of terrorist affected persons (in order of preference to the exclusion of next category) (As per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court)

(a) Persons killed in terrorist actions in Punjab/riots outside Punjab.

(b) Terrorist/Riot affected/displaced persons.

Mr. Sibal will, accordingly, contend that even if the petitioners were not eligible for being considered as the wards of person killed in terrorist action on the ground that they are grandchildren, they would certainly be eligible for being considered as wards of terrorist affected/riot affected or displaced persons.

There is apparent fallacy in this submission. If both the categories are same then the petitioners cannot be taken as wards of terrorist affected and would be disqualified as per the judgment of the Full Bench. The petitioners indeed were considered in this category this being different category but were not admitted.

In the reply, the stand taken by respondents is that the petitioners had only applied under the category Code No. 22 being Wards of person killed in terrorist action but still in fairness, they were considered in the category of displaced persons at the time of counselling. It is stated that only those persons could be considered in the category of riot affected/displayed persons, who had red card issued by the Government of Punjab to show. Since the petitioners could not produced the red card, they were not considered eligible in the category of wards of riots affected/displaced persons. It is also
pointed out that respondents No. 3 to 5 had applied in the category 21 and sub category B and had produced the red card at the time of counselling to substantiate their claim as wards of displaced person and, accordingly, their admission has been justified.

In the replies filed on behalf of the private respondents, it is pointed out that even if the claim of the petitioners Ravneet Kaur and Pawanpreet Kaur is allowed, they would not be able to get admission as private respondents are more meritorious.

According to the counsel, this exercise of considering the petitioner, thus, would be an exercise in futility. The counsel otherwise also submits that petitioners are not eligible for being considered in the category of wards of riot affected/terrorist affected or displaced persons as they had not applied in the said category. Plea is that it is not for the purpose of preference alone that these two categories were assigned separate categories number. For being eligible the petitioners were required to apply in all the relevant category if they were interested for being considered for admission in more than one category.

In view of the above stand, it may first have to be seen as to in which categories the petitioners had applied and whether in that
background they would be eligible for being considered as Wards of riot affected/displaced persons or not. As para 5 (v) reproduced above, it may appear that the category is one but it is only a matter of preference that the same has been sub-divided into para A and B.

The deeper analysis of the position, however, would belie this
position. Para 5 (v) apparently has been made for regulating the
reservation and is not meant to make a provision for different
categories. Reservation is made for Wards of terrorist affected
persons and preference is to be given to them, as per the classification done in sub para A and B. Para 5, in my view, is not making a provision for categories. This para is only providing for a reservation and the extent thereof. It also makes a provision for grant of preference for the purpose of consideration. The category-wise bifurcation and the category Code is given in page 12 of the prospectus. It is specifically stated at this page of prospectus that a candidate must select a category codes given below and fill in the appropriate circles. In case, a candidate belongs to more than one category then he/she may fill more than one category code at the appropriate stage. As per this, Wards of person killed in terrorist action in Punjab were to fill in category Code No. 21 whereas Wards of riot affected and displaced persons were to fill in category Code
No. 22. The petitioners had filled in their form category Code 21.

None of the petitioners had filled in the category code 22. The clear intention on their part, thus, was to be considered in category Code No. 21 which was for Wards for persons killed in terrorist action. The petitioners never applied for being considered as Wards of riot affected/displaced persons and legally could not be considered in this category. The petitioners pursued their claim in category 21 till the decision by the Full Bench of this Court and filed an amended writ petition thereafter. Accordingly, they amended their claim only once they were unsuccessful for being considered in the category of
Wards of person killed in terrorist action.

Though the respondents have considered the claim of the
petitioners in category 22 but that in my view was not appropriate as the petitioners had not applied in this category. It is a settled principal of law that a person can be considered for the categories in which he or she apply. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that indeed the petitioners would be the Wards of riot affected/displaced person would be meaningless because the petitioners were required to apply in this category if they were interested of being considered in the said category. It would be of importance to observe that petitioners could apply for more than one category and they could fill more than one category if they were so interested for being considered in these categories. The petitioners had not applied in category 22 and, hence, they could not be validly
considered in this category for grant of admission.

As already noticed, except for one petitioner Manbir Kaur, other two petitioners even after consideration cannot be admitted on
merit as the respondents are more meritorious than the petitioners.

Manbir Kaur may be entitled to admission on the basis of her merit but she could be considered in the category of Wards of riot affected/ terrorist affected or displaced persons only if she had applied in this category. The form filled by Manbir Kaur was placed before me at the time of argument and it is seen that this petitioner had not never applied in category 22. It was primarily for this reason that the counsel for the petitioner was vehement in his submission that the category of Wards of persons those killed in terrorist action and Wards of riot affected and displaced person is the same. If the category had been the same and it was a matter of only preference, then there is no reason or a cause for giving two separate code to these categories. As already noticed, one percent reservation is made in all for both the categories whereas these categories being different have been assigned to two different code numbers. Para 5 (vi) of the prospectus is only making provision for reservation of all the categories and is not meant to assign categories or code thereof, which is done at page 12 of the prospectus and the same reads as under:-

11. Wards of
a) Persons Killed in terrorist action in Punjab 21

b) Riot affected/displaced persons 22

The cause of the petitioner Manbir Kaur, therefore, can also not be considered for grant of admission in the category of wards of terrorists affected or riot affected/displaced persons. There is no merit in any of the writ petitions and the same are, accordingly,
dismissed.

(RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

Dr Renu Gupta versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Dr. Renu Gupta,
# 989, Sector 15-A,
Opposite Bishnoi Colony Market,
Hisar- 125001. ________Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Guru Angad Dev Veterinary & Animal Sciences University,
Ludhiana- 141004. __________ Respondent

AC No. 750 of 2010

Present: None.

ORDER
The appellant has pointed out two deficiencies in the information supplied to her in respect of point nos. (xi) to (xiii) of her application for information. These have been communicated to the respondent vide the appellant’s letter dated 08-11-2010. The respondent is directed to give a response to these two points including any additional information, if the same is due, before the next date of hearing and also to attend the next hearing either personally or through an authorized representative.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 23-12-2010 for confirmation of compliance.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
18th November, 2010.

SUNITA KUMARI Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHER Civil Writ Petition No. 10456 of 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: November 01, 2010

Sunita Kumari .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others ....Respondents PRESENT: Mr. Sajib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The Full Bench has dismissed LPA No. 669 of 2000 as infructuous on 03.07.2009. Counsel for the petitioner says that the present writ petition, therefore, is rendered infructuous and, accordingly, is disposed of as such.
(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

Rajinder Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Rajinder Singh,
S/o. Sh. Ramjeet Singh,
VPO Chhapar,
District Ludhiana- 141001. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent


CC No. 2435 of 2010

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Gaurav Kumar. Data Entry Operator, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
The respondent states that as per the ordinance approved by the Board of Management of the University, the duration of the course of B.Sc. (Nursing) is required to be of a period of four years, including compulsory internship, and this is binding on all colleges. He further states that no representation or complaint has been received from the complainant, Sh. Rajinder Singh, that the course which he is undergoing has become for a period of four years two months because of a delay in the holding of examinations.

In the above circumstances, this case is disposed of and in case a representation is received along the lines indicated above, it may be dealt with by the University authorities under the relevant regulations.
Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
15th October, 2010

Rajinder Garg versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Rajinder Garg,
# 6, PNB Complex,
Vikas Vihar,
District- Ferozepur-152001. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

CC No. 2645 of 2010

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant .
ii) Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Data Entry Operator, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
The information required by the complainant has been provided to him by the respondent vide his letter dated 11-06-2010. Insofar as point nos. 6 to 8, 11, 12 & 13 mentioned in the application for information of the complainant are concerned, I agree with the respondent that since receipts and expenditure of the University are made in a common account, it is not possible for the University to pin point the information mentioned against these points, which the complainant has alleged has not been given to him deliberately.

No further action is required to be taken in this case, which is disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
30th September, 2010.

Rajinder Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Rajinder Singh,
S/o. Sh. Ramjeet Singh,
VPO Chhapar,
District Ludhiana- 141001. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

CC No. 2435 of 2010

Present:
i) Sh. Rajinder Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Gaurav Kumar. Data Entry Operator, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
Heard.
The application for information of the complainant has been discussed in detail in the presence of both the parties, and the only information which needs to be supplied to him in respect of this application is as follows :-

“The complainant joined the first year course for the degree of B.Sc. Nursing, in Government Nursing College, Patiala, in October, 2006 According to the regulations of the University, the duration of the course for the degree of B.Sc. Nursing is of four years, including the period of internship. The internship of the complainant however has been started by the Government Nursing College, Patiala, wef. from 01-09-2010 and it will therefore end by 28-02-2011, and the duration of the course of the complainant shall therefore become four years and two months.. Since the duration of the course will violate the regulations of the University, what action, if any, is proposed to be taken by the University to enforce its regulations in this regard.”

The above information should be sent to the complainant by the respondent before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 10 AM on 15-10-2010 for confirmation of compliance.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
24th September, 2010.

Malkit Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Malkit Singh,
S/o. Sh. Surjit Singh,
VPO Sherpur Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon,
District- Ludhiana. ________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

AC No. 510 of 2010

Present:
i) Sh. Malkit Singh, appellant in person .
ii) Sh. Manjeet Singh, Date Entry Operator, on behalf of the respondent

ORDER
Heard.
The respondent states that the appellant has been informed that comments of the college have been asked for on his complaint dated 14-01-2010. Today, he has given the information that the comments of the college were given vide their letter dated 12-02-2010 and the same has been forwarded to the appellant, meaning thereby that the university has accepted the comments of the college as correct.

No further action is required to be taken in this case, which is disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
15th July, 2010

Dhiraj Goyal versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Dhiraj Goyal,
S/o. Sh. Inderjit Kumar,
House No. 680, Phase I, Model Town,
Bathinda. ________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

AC No. 447 of 2010

Present:
i) Dr. Dhiraj Goyal appellant in person .
ii) Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Date Entry Operator on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
The information required by the appellant had been mostly given to him by the respondent. In addition, a copy of the proceedings of the selection committee in which the selection for the post of Assistant Professor in the Orthopaedics department was made, has also been given to the appellant in the Court today.
Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
17th June, 2010

Jasjeet Singh Cheema versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Jasjeet Singh Cheema,
S/o. Sh. Daler Singh Cheema,
Village Bhatnura Kalan, P.O. Bhatnura Lubana Via Bhogpur,
Distt- Kapurthala. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

CC No. 1598 & 1599 of 2010

Present:
i) Sh. Sh. Jasjeet Singh Cheema, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Gaurav, Assistant on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
Heard.
The information required by the complainant has been brought by the respondent to the Court in accordance with the orders dated 27-05-2010 and seen by the undersigned.
Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
3rd June, 2010

Jasjeet Singh Cheema versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Jasjeet Singh Cheema,
S/o. Sh. Daler Singh Cheema,
Village Bhatnura Kalan, P.O. Bhatnura Lubana Via Bhogpur,
Distt- Kapurthala.
________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot.
__________ Respondent
CC No. 1598 & 1599 of 2010

Present:
i) Sh. Daler Singh Cheema, complainant in person and Sh.Narinder Pal Singh Virk on behalf of the complainant.
ii) Sh. Manjeet Singh, Data Entry Operator on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
These two cases are being dealt by this single order since the respondent and the nature of the information which has been applied for in both the cases is identical.

The applications for information in these cases have asked for copies of answer sheets pertaining to papers (A) & (B) in the subject of Pathology. This information has not been given to the complainants by the PIO, claiming exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.

While I agree with the reply given to the complainants by the respondent, I would like to take a look at the concerned answer sheets which are the subject matter of this case in the presence of the parties, and the respondent is therefore directed to bring the information for which the complainants have applied to the Court on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 03-06-2010 for further considerations and orders.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
27th May, 2010

Kuldeep Kumar versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Kuldeep Kumar,
S/o.Sh. Surajbhan,
R/o. Valmeek Colony, Aara Market,
District- Faridkot. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

CC No. 1557 of 2010

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant .
ii) Sh. Gaurav Kumar , Data Entry Operator, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
The respondent has submitted to the Court a copy of the written request made by the complainant withdrawing his application for information.
Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
30th April, 2010

Tarlochan Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Tarlochan Singh,
F/o. Ms. Navjot Kaur,
Vill & PO Ghungrana,
Distt- Ludhiana.
________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Science,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

CC No. 3567 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. Tarlochan Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Sri Upinder Prashar, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
The letter issued by the respondent, mentioned in the Court’s orders dated 21-01-2010 has been received by the complainant. In the letter the respondent has stated that the admission of the complainant’s daughter was cancelled ( in fact the 1st year B.Sc. Nursing examination , 2008 itself was not held ) in accordance with the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed in CWP 17254 of 2007. A copy of the judgment has also been given to the complainant in the Court today.
Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
4th February, 2010

Isha Gupta versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot


STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Smt. Isha Gupta,
W/o. Sh. Sanjay Gupta,
1388/1, New Basti,
Bathinda.
________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Baba Farid University & Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

CC No 2771 of 2009

Present:
i) Mr. Rohit Singh on behalf of the complainant
ii)Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.
iii) Dr.Jagmeet Singh, Mai Bhago Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital.

ORDER
Heard.
In compliance with the Court’s orders dated 31-12-2009, the remaining information has been supplied by the respondent to the complainant.
Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
29th January, 2010 Punjab

Tarlochan Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Tarlochan Singh,
F/o.Ms.Navjot Kaur,
Vill & PO Ghungrana,
Distt- Ludhiana. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Science,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

CC No. 3567 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. Tarlochan Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Sri Upinder Prashar, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that a letter has been issued to the complainant in which the reason for not admitting his daughter to the first year nursing examination has been explained. The complainant states that he has not yet got the letter and the Ld. Counsel has also not received a copy as yet . This case is therefore adjourned to 10 AM on 04-02-2010 with the direction to the respondent to make sure that the letter has been received by the complainant and in case it is not received till the next date of hearing, a copy of the same should be brought to the Court. If on the other hand, the letter has been received by the complainant before the next date of hearing, it would not be necessary for the parties to attend the Court.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
21st January, 2010

Shakti Paul Sharma Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Shakti Paul Sharma, Advocate,
S/o Dr. K.P. Sharma,
H No-116, Sector-7,
Panchkula-134109 ________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
G.G.S. Hospital Complex, Sadiq Road,
Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

AC No. 891 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. Shakti Paul Sharma, Advocate, appellant in person.
ii) Sri Saurabh Garg, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
With reference to the orders passed on 16-12-2009, Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that there are no written records in connection with the letter dated 06-06-2009 of the appellant.

Insofar as the answer sheet of the appellant’s daughters, Shruti Kaushik , is concerned, the test consisted of multiple choice questions in which the candidate was required to darken the circle next to the answer of his choice. Thereafter, the answer sheets were evaluated by OMR method and the number of marks obtained by the candidate were recorded on each answer sheet. Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that under the Regulations/Prospectus of the University, candidates dissatisfied with their marks can apply for a recheck of their answer sheets after depositing the prescribed fees of Rs.10,000/- , and in order to simply see their answer sheet they have to deposit a fee of Rs.5000/-. He states that there is no provision in the prospectus for a copy of the answer sheet to be given to a student.

I do not agree with the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that a copy of the answer sheet cannot be given to the candidate because there is no provision for the same in the prospectus. Section 22 of the RTI Act 2005 states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the any other law, and therefore, the respondent has an obligation to give this information to the complainant under the act. However, the RTI Act cannot be used to avoid making the payment of fees prescribed for certain purposes in the rules and regulations framed by the public authority concerned. In this case an amount of Rs.5000/- is required to be paid by a candidate as fees for seeing his answer sheet. I therefore direct the respondent to provide an attested copy of the candidate, Ms.Shruti Kaushik’s answer sheet to the appellant, after he has deposited the prescribed fees of Rs.5000/- .
Disposed of.
(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
14th January, 2010

Isha Gupta versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Smt. Isha Gupta,
W/o. Sh. Sanjay Gupta,
1388/1, New Basti,
Bathinda.
________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Baba Farid University & Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

CC No 2771 of 2009

Present:
i) Mr. Rohit Singh on behalf of the complainant
ii) Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.
iii) Dr. Jitander Sharma, Lecturer, Saint Sahara Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital.

ORDER
Heard.
The information required by the complainant is required to be collected by the respondent from the concerned college. The college has written vide letter dated 23-12-2009 that it is lengthy information and is required to be compiled and this will be done immediately after the winter vacations are over on 05-01-2010 and thereafter supplied to the University.

This case has already been delayed since the college has not been responding to the directions of the University for supplying the information. I therefore adjourn this case to 10 AM on 29-01-2010 with the direction to the respondent to ensure that the information is collected and supplied to the complainant before that date. In case these orders are not complied with, the Principal, Mai Bhago Ayurvedic Medical College, Mukatsar, will be deemed to be the PIO in this case and action will be taken to penalize him under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The representative of the college should also be present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab

Tarlochan Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Tarlochan Singh,
F/o.Ms.Navjot Kaur,
Vill & PO Ghungrana,
Distt- Ludhiana. ________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Science,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

CC No. 3567 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. Tarlochan Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Sri Saurabh Garg, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
The respondent has informed the complainant that Baba Farid University of Health Sciences granted provisional affiliation for B.Sc (Nursing) first year course to Bengal Institute of Health Sciences, Raikot on 28-11-2008. They have taken a stand that the remainder of this point of the application is not covered under the RTI Act, 2005. The information which has been asked for at items B and D of the application for information is not available in the University. Insofar as item C is concerned, the complainant has been asked to submit requisite details for locating the Supreme Court judgement.

While the reply given by the respondent to the complainant is in order, it should be possible for the respondent to convey the reasons for not admitting the complainant’s daughter to the Ist year B.Sc. (Nursing) examination, which was held in 2008, which should be done before the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 21-01-2010 for confirmation of compliance.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
29th December, 2009 Punjab

Sh Shakti Paul Sharma Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Shakti Paul Sharma, Advocate,
S/o Dr. K.P. Sharma,
H No-116, Sector-7,
Panchkula-134109 ________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
G.G.S. Hospital Complex, Sadiq Road,
Faridkot- 151203. __________ Respondent

AC No. 891 of 2009

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant
ii) Sri Saurabh Garg, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
The respondent has given a reply to the complainant vide his letter dated 06-08-2009. Ld. Counsel for the respondent seeks some time to find out whether there are written records in connection with the letter dated 06-06-2009 of the complainant and whether there is any objection to disclosing the question booklet on an application for information.
The complainant is also not present.
Adjourned to 10 AM on 14-01-2010 to give an opportunity to the parties to make further submissions.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab

16th December, 2009

DR IBADAT PREET KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CWP No.9420 of 2009

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Date of decision: 30.11.2009

Dr.Ibadat Preet Kaur ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.Aman Inder Preet Singh, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Mr. PC Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6.
Ms.Pooja Bishnoi, Advocate,for
Mr.Anupam Gupta,Advocate,for respondent No.4.
Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.7 for the PG Course i.e. MDS in the Government Medical College, Amritsar in the discipline of Conservative Dentistry under the Institutional Preference Category. The petitioner also applied for the admission to PG Course under the Institutional Preference Category. The petitioner has passed her BDS from the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. Respondent No.7 was admitted to PG Course on the basis of counselling held on 23.04.2009. She opted for Prosthodontics discipline whereas the petitioner opted for oral surgery which was the next choice of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No.7 were admitted to their respective discipline and joined the courses. Thereafter, another counselling was held on 17.06.2009 in which the petitioner and respondent also appeared. In the meantime, four more seats became available on account of the shifting of the same from 60% quota to 40 % quota of unfilled seats. Out of four seats, two were declared as Institutional Preference Seats. One seat has been allotted to the Conservative Dentistry and another to Prosthodontics
Discipline. It is alleged that respondent No.7 was not entitled to be
considered against the Institutional Preference quota seats as she had passed her BDS degree from the Christian Dental College. The petitioner has relied upon the Prospectus issued by the University relating to admission under Clause 30.v of the Explanation (at page 63 of the Prospectus) which provides guidelines for admission to the course. Sub Clause-v of Clause 30, deals with reservation by way of Institutional Preference upto 50% seats available for General Category Candidates, which reads as under:-

(v): The reservation by way of Institutional Preference upto 50% seats available for General Category Candidates shall also be applicable in respect of other State/Private/Medical/Dental Colleges, except Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, to the candidates qualifying from the colleges of Punjab. Admission to institutional preference seats will be allowed to the candidates who had passed eligibility examination from the University i.e. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot.

Based upon the aforesaid clause, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that institutional preference is available to General Category candidates except the candidates who have passed from Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7 was not eligible to be admitted to the course in institutional preference category in view of the clear stipulation in the Prospectus.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, relied on the Government notification dated 19.02.2009 whereby the original
clause-v of the earlier notification dated 17.03.2008 has been amended. The amended clause reads as under:-

4. In para 30 (V) the following is added in the last line after Punjab:-

Admission to institutional preference seats will be allowed to the candidates who had passed eligibility examination from the University i.e. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot.

It is vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that in view of the amendment Institutional Preference Seats will be allotted to the
candidates who have passed eligibility/qualifying examination from Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and, thus, the condition in the original Prospectus stands waived off. From the Prospectus it appears that this amendment has already been incorporated in Sub Clause-v of Clause 30 the Prospectus without changing the original condition wherein Christian Medical College was created as an exception. Even though, the intention of the Government might have been to remove the condition, however, the amendment made on 19.02.2009 only adds a condition without
deleting the original stipulation in Sub Clause-v of Clause 30. It appears that the State Government has not clarified the position even by way of amendment.

Be that as it may, as on date the petitioner also stands admitted to the MDS course, though in the discipline of Oral Surgery, whereas
respondent No.7 has been admitted to discipline of Conservative Surgery.

The session commenced from 19.06.2009. The first semester examination is likely to be commenced very soon. Otherwise also, in view the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 65, wherein it has been held that no admission can be granted after cut off date i.e. 31st May.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

DR R K BALIVsBABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTH Civil Writ Petition 8730 of 2006 (O and M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 5th November, 2009

Dr. R.K. Bali … Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and another … Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:
None.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
In the present writ petition, petitioner had prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent Baba Farid University of Health Sciences to restore and ensure the continued
membership of the petitioner as member of Dental Faculty of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, as in that capacity petitioner became member of Dental Council of India for a term of five years. The term had to end on 7th September, 2009. In para 15 of the petition, it has been averred as under:

15. That pursuant to said appointment the Senate of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences vide their fourth meeting dated 8th September, 2004 unanimously elected the Petitioner as a member of Dental Council of India for a term of five years which expires on 7th September, 2009. It is pertinent to again mention here that the Senate has been empowered as per Section 3(d) and Section 6(1) of the Dentist Act to elect and nominate the Petitioner for representing the University in Dental Council of India for a term of 5 years. The minutes of meeting dated 8th September, 2004 is annexed as Annexure P-6.

The term of present writ petitioner has expired on 7th September, 2009. Hence, the present writ petition is rendered infructuous.

Dismissed as such.

All Civil Miscellaneous applications filed in present writ petition also stand disposed of.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE

Isha Gupta versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Smt. Isha Gupta,
W/o. Sh. Sanjay Gupta,
1388/1, New Basti,
Bathinda.
________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Baba Farid University & Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

CC No 2771 of 2009

Present:
i) Sri Rohit Singla , on behalf of the complainant
ii) None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.
The application for information in this case has asked for detailed information concerning the teaching staff of Mai Bhago Ayurvedic Medical College, Muktsar and Saint Sahara Ayurvedic College, Kot Shamir, Distt. Bathinda . The University has sent the names, qualifications and addresses of the teaching staff of Saint Sahara Ayurvedic College, Kot Shamir to the complainant and has informed her that the information regarding Mai Bhago Ayurvedic Medical College, will be supplied as and when it is received from them. The complainant , however, states that most of the information for which she applied exists in the records of the University.

A perusal of her application shows that information has been asked for such as Pan Nos. etc. of the teaching staff , merely because the colleges are affiliated to the University.
In the above circumstances the following directions are given :-
1. It is necessary for the respondent to study the application of the complainant carefully and make a submission to the Court on the next date of hearing as to which information is already in the records of the University.

2. It would be necessary for the college or their authorized representative to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with the detailed response of the University to the application for information of the complainant.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 26-11-2009 for further consideration and orders.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab
29th October, 2009

SH ASHOK GUPTAVsBABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT CWP 3576 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

DATE OF DECISION : 12.10.2009

Sh. Ashok Gupta .... PETITIONER
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot .... RESPONDENT

CORAM :-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondent.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner is working as Superintendent in the office of the
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Teona Pujarian District Bathinda.

He has passed his Graduation from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Post Graduation in Economics in 3rd Division from the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. He possesses M.B.A. Degree from Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. In the year 2005, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (respondent herein) advertised various posts, including the post of Assistant Registrar on regular/contract basis, vide advertisement No. 2 of 2005, as published in the daily `The Tribune newspaper dated 30.12.2005. According to the said advertisement, a person having Masters Degree from a recognized University and also having 15 years experience of working in a University/Educational Institute or in Govt. Office, was eligible for the appointment. The petitioner and other candidates applied for the post. Undisputedly, against the said advertisement, no recruitment was made. Subsequently, in the year 2007-08, advertisement No. 2 was issued/published in the daily `Ajit newspaper dated 29.12.2007 for making recruitment of various posts, including the post of Assistant Registrar, on regular/contract basis. As per this advertisement, a candidate possessing Masters Degree from a recognized University and having 7 years experience of working in a responsible position in a University, was eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not qualified to
be appointed on the post of Deputy Registrar, in view of the qualifications mentioned in the said advertisement. Therefore, he has filed the instant petition for quashing the advertisement No.2 of 2007-08, published in the daily `Ajit newspaper dated 29.12.2007 and further to issue direction to the respondent University to consider the petitioner as eligible in terms of the qualifications mentioned in the earlier advertisement No. 2 of 2005.

The respondent University has filed written statement, in which it has been stated that in pursuance of the first advertisement No. 2 of 2005, no selection/appointment was made, because the respondent University had reserved its right to fill up or not to fill up the posts. It is further stated that in order to get more qualified and more suitable person for the post of Assistant Registrar, in the second advertisement No. 2 of 2007-08, the respondent University had taken a conscious decision to provide higher qualification and more experience, to meet the exigencies and necessities of the service. It is contended that the petitioner has no right to challenge the authority of the respondent University to amend/alter or to bring into force new qualifications for the post, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. In absence of the Rule, it is for the respondent University to lay down the eligibility condition and qualification for appointment on regular/contract basis on a particular post. Undisputedly, there is no Rule, which provides specific qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar. At one point of time, the respondent University decided to make contractual appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar from the candidates, who possess Masters Degree from a recognized University and 15 years experience of working in a University/ Educational Institute or in Govt. Office, but no appointment was made in pursuance of the said advertisement.

Subsequently, fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2007-08, in which different qualification was prescribed.

According to the said qualification, the petitioner is not eligible for
appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar. In my opinion, the petitioner has no legal right to compel the respondent University to lay down particular qualification for appointment on a particular post. The respondent University being the employer is fully competent to lay down particular qualification for a particular post, in view of the exigencies of services, requirement and functioning of the post. It is admitted position that the qualification and experience, as provided in the second advertisement, has been duly approved by the Board of Management of the respondent
University. I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in fixing the fresh qualification and experience for the post of Assistant Registrar, by issuing second advertisement. The petitioner has no legal right to ask the respondent University to treat him eligible for the post of Assistant Registrar in view of the qualification and experience, prescribed
in the previous advertisement (Annexure P-4).

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition.

Dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

SMT NEELAM KUMARIVsBABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT CWP 1242 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

DATE OF DECISION : 12.10.2009

Smt. Neelam Kumari .... PETITIONER
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondent.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner is working as UDC in the office of Superintending Engineering, Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot. She has passed her Graduation in 2nd Division and Post Graduation in
Economics from Panjab University, Chandigarh. She also possesses one year B.Ed. Degree from M.D.U., Rohtak. In the year 2005, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (respondent herein) advertised various posts, including the post of Deputy Registrar on regular/contract basis, vide advertisement No. 2 of 2005, as published in the daily `The Tribune newspaper dated 30.12.2005. According to the said advertisement, a person having Masters Degree from a recognized University and also
having 20 years experience of working in a University/ Educational Institute or in Govt. Office, was eligible for the appointment. The petitioner and other candidates applied for the post. Undisputedly, against the said advertisement, no recruitment was made. Subsequently, in the year 2007-08, the advertisement No. 2 was issued/published in the daily `Ajit newspaper dated 29.12.2007 for making recruitment of various posts, including the post of Deputy Registrar, on regular/contract basis. As per this advertisement, a candidate possessing Masters Degree with at least 55% marks from a recognized University and having at least 10 years experience of working in a responsible position in a University, was eligible for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not qualified to be appointed on the post of Deputy Registrar, in
view of the qualifications mentioned in the said advertisement.

Therefore, she has filed the instant petition for quashing the advertisement No.2 of 2007-08, published in the daily `Ajit newspaper dated 29.12.2007 and further to issue direction to the respondent University to consider the petitioner as eligible in terms of the qualifications mentioned in the earlier advertisement No. 2 of 2005.

The respondent University has filed written statement, in which it has been stated that in pursuance of the first advertisement No. 2 of 2005, no selection/appointment was made, because the respondent University had reserved its right to fill up or not to fill up the posts. It is further stated that in order to get more qualified and more suitable person for the post of Deputy Registrar, in the second advertisement No. 2 of 2007-08, the respondent University had taken a conscious decision to provide higher qualification and more experience, to meet the exigencies and necessities of the service. It is contended that the petitioner has no right to challenge the authority of the respondent University to amend/alter or to bring into force new qualifications for the post, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. In absence of the Rule, it is for the respondent University to lay down the eligibility condition and qualification for appointment on regular/contract basis on a particular post. Undisputedly, there is no Rule, which provides specific qualification for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. At one point of time, the respondent University decided to make contractual appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar from the candidates, who possess Masters Degree from a
recognized University and 20 years experience of working in a University/ Educational Institute or in Govt. Office, but no appointment was made in pursuance of the said advertisement. Subsequently, fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2007-08, in which different qualification was prescribed.

According to the said qualification, the petitioner is not eligible for
appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. In my opinion, the petitioner has no legal right to compel the respondent University to lay down particular qualification for appointment on a particular post. The respondent University being the employer is fully competent to lay down particular qualification for a particular post, in view of the exigencies of services, requirement and functioning of the post. It is admitted position that the qualification and experience, as provided in the second advertisement, has been duly approved by the Board of Management of the respondent
University. I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in fixing the fresh qualification and experience for the post of Deputy Registrar, by issuing second advertisement.

The petitioner has no legal right to ask the respondent University to treat her eligible for the post of Deputy Registrar in view of the qualification and experience, prescribed in the previous advertisement (Annexure P-4).

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition.

Dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

MEHAK TRIKHAVsBABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHER



Sh Chuni Lal Kashyap versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

30358 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Chuni Lal Kashyap,
S/o Late Sh. K.R. Kashyap,
4-Jagdish Vohra Cottage,
Stokes Place, Shimla-171002 ________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

AC No. 363 of 2009

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant
ii) Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
In compliance with the Court’s orders dated 17-09-2009, the respondent has submitted a revised reply stating that the instructions of the UGC dated 23-4-2007 and 7-06-2007 on the subject of the refund of fees have not been followed by the University, which has incorporated its own regulations in the prospectus of PMET-2009. A copy of the revised reply has been sent by the respondent to the complainant and a copy of the reply submitted to the Court should also be sent to the complainant along with these orders for his information.
Disposed of.
(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
22nd September ,2009 Punjab

Sh Chuni Lal Kashyap versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Chuni Lal Kashyap,
S/o Late Sh. K.R. Kashyap,
4-Jagdish Vohra Cottage,
Stokes Place, Shimla-171002 ________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. __________ Respondent

AC No. 363 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. Chuni Lal Kashyap, complainant in person.
ii) Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
The University has sent a clarification to the complainant in compliance with the Court’s orders dated 20-8-2009 but it does not adequately clarify the point raised during the hearing of the case on 20-8-2009, namely, whether the instructions of the UGC, particularly the instructions pertaining to the refund of fees, are binding on the University. The respondent states that a written reply to this exact point will be brought to the Court if a short adjournment is given. The request of the respondent is allowed and the case is adjourned to 10 AM on
22-9-2009 (in Chambers) for submission of the required clarification by the respondent.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
17th September ,2009 Punjab

Sanjeevan Kumar versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Sh. Sanjeevan Kumar,
H.No. 1146, Custom & Excise Society,
Sector 51-B, Chandigarh
------------------------Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot - 151 20 -------------------------Respondent


AC No. 390 of 2009
Alongwith
AC No.272 of 2009
&
AC No. 280 of 2009
Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Appellant
(ii) Ms. Manu Goyal, Advocate on behalf of the University and Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate on behalf of the College.
ORDER

Heard

2. During the last hearing, one more opportunity was granted to the Appellant to pursue his her case but he she has not availed the same. It is presumed that he-she is not interested to pursue his-her case.

3. Dismissed for non prosecution. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner

NEHA SONIVsTHE REGISTRAR BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCI

CWP No.9966 of 2009

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision: 16.09.2009

Neha Soni ... Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar,Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others ... Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.Surmukh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate,for respondent No.1.
Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate,for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
Respondent No.1 issued Prospectus for holding Punjab Medical Entrance Test, 2009, for admission to various courses including MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BHMS. The petitioner applied for the courses aforesaid for which test was to be conducted on 14.06.2009. She was allotted Roll No.575854. The petitioner participated in the Entrance Test
and secured 1578 rank in the general category. The candidates who were successful in the Entrance Test were required to fill admission form for which last date as fixed as 26.06.2009 upto 5.00 p.m. It is the admitted case of the parties that she sent form on 24.06.2009 from Gurdaspur through speed post. However, the application from of the petitioner was received by the respondents on 29.06.2009. Since the admission form was received beyond the time prescribed under the Prospectus, the petitioner was not considered for admission. The petitioner after making a representation filed this petition seeking a direction for her consideration for admission to the courses mentioned above and other allied courses.

In the reply filed, the respondents have referred to the provisions of the Prospectus. It is stated that since the petitioner's admission form was delivered at Faridkot on 29.06.2009, i.e. beyond the period prescribed, the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered.

The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997 (3) SCT, 526, wherein the following observations have been made:-

I am, therefore, of the opinion that when the date or time has been stipulated in the advertisement and also in the Information Brochure, it must be strictly adhered to as otherwise it leads to uncertainty, unending process, anomaly and deprivation of equality clause and further it widens
the competition amongst the candidates seeking admission into professional courses. It is also difficult to determine upto what period the time limit can be extended. If such power is to be exercised, it will lead to arbitrariness.

In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgments, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

HARITA BANSAL Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT

CWP No.12649 of 2009

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision: 24.08.2009

Harita Bansal
Vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot and others.

CORAM:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The petitioner is orthopaedically handicapped and suffers from deformity of upper right forearm with 65 percent permanent disability. She applied for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in the physically handicapped category for academic Session 2009-10.

The respondents issued notification dated 31.03.2008 laying down the eligibility for selection/admission to various courses.

In so far as the orthopaedically handicapped category is concerned, the following eligibility conditions have been laid down:-

The candidate under category (iii) of orthopaedic handicap shall be admitted only if he/she has locomotors disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% and with this disability he/she is otherwise found fit medically to pursue the concerned course by the Medical
Board duly constituted by the Government and consisting of Heads of the respective Departments of three Medical Institutes at Patiala, Amritsar and Faridkot of the specialty concerned. Similarly for the candidates opting under visual/hearing impairment category in BAMS Course the admission shall be made if the candidate is otherwise found fit medically to pursue the concerned course by the said Medical Board.

Since as per the eligibility conditions only such of the candidates who have physically deformity in the lower limb are entitled to consideration for admission the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the category as she is suffering from deformity of the upper limb. This issue earlier came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.12834 of 2004 (Nidhi Kamla and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) which came to be disposed of on 30.09.2004. This Court considered various aspects of the aforesaid eligibility conditions and gave following directions:-

(i) Though the MCI is not a party to this writ petition, however, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and the State of Punjab (respondents No.1 and 2 respectively) shall immediately contact the MCI along with a copy of this order but not later than five days from
the date of receipt of its copy:

(ii) The Medical Council of India will constitute an expert committee either at its own level, or advise the University and/or the State Govt. to constitute the same, however, the MCI will send its nominee, who shall be the Chairman of such newly constituted Medical Board-cum-Expert Committee:

(iii) The afore-mentioned Expert Committee/Medical Board will re-examine the case of the petitioners herein. While in relation to petitioners No.1 and 2, the Expert Committee/Medical Board shall examine as to whether they will be ineligible for admission to the Medical course because of their locomotory disability upper limbs even if the feelings and sensation in such upper limbs are absolutely normal and do not hamper the dayto-day functioning in any manner. In the case of petitioner No.3, in addition to the afore-said aspect, the Expert Committee/Medical Board will additionally examine as to whether the locomotory disability suffered by him pertains to the upper limbs or the lower limbs :

(iv) If the Expert Committee/Medical Board holds that the petitioners are ineligible to seek admission in the medical courses, then the claim of the petitioners shall stand rejected automatically. However, if they or anyone of them are/is found eligible by the Expert Committee/Medical Board for the MBBS course, the respondents are directed to admit them/ him to such course forthwith and not later than two days from the date of submission of the expert opinion by the Expert Committee/Medical Board.

(v) Three seats in the MBBS course, which were directed to be kept unfilled vide order dated September 23, 2004, shall not be filled by the respondents till the afore-mentioned directions are complied with.

In view of the above directions, the petitioner is also entitled to be considered subject to the expert opinion of the Medical Board. Let the petitioner be examined by the expert Medical Board in terms of the aforesaid judgment. In the meantime, the petitioner may be allowed provisionally to participate in the counselling proposed to be conducted by the respondent-University and her right for admission
to the course in question shall depend upon the outcome of the Medical Board.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

Sh Chuni Lal Kashyap versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Chuni Lal Kashyap,
S/o Late Sh. K.R. Kashyap,
4-Jagdish Vohra Cottage,
Stokes Place, Shimla-171002
________ Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot.
__________ Respondent
AC No. 363 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. Chuni Lal Kashyap, complainant in person.
ii) Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
The information required by the complainant has been provided to him by the respondent but it is deficient, because in reply to para 3(a), the respondent has not given any clear-cut answer whether the rules, guidelines or instructions issued by the UGC are followed by the University compulsorily, i.e. whether they are binding on the University. A copy of the prospectus relevant to the subject of refund of fees, stated by the respondent to be enclosed with their letter sent to the complainant, was found missing and the same has been provided to the complainant in the Court today.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent has made a commitment that the deficiency in so far as para 3(a) of the complainant’s application is concerned, mentioned above, will be removed and the answer to the question posed will be provided to the complainant within 15 days.
Adjourned to 10 A.M. on 17-9-2009 for confirmation of compliance.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
20th August, 2009 Punjab

Sh Sanjeevan Kumar versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor (Court No-2), Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Sanjeevan Kumar,
H.No. 1146, Custom & Excise Society,
Sector 51-B, Chandigarh.
__________Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot-151203.
__________ Respondent

AC No. 390 of 2009

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant
ii)Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.
Sri Vikas Kuthela, Advocate . on behalf of the Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College,Ludhiana.

ORDER
Heard.
The respondent states that the information required by the complainant has been provided to him and copies of the same have been taken on the record of the case.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant states that the application for information in this case is identical to the applications in AC-272, 273 and 280 of 2009 pending before the bench of Hon. SIC S. Kulbir Singh in which the next date of hearing is 17-8-2009.
Deputy Registrar may please take steps for the transfer of this case to the bench of Hon. S. Kulbir Singh, SIC.
(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
6th August, 2009 Punjab

RITIKA Vs BABA FARID UNIVESITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTHE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

CWP No.8414 of 2009

Date of decision:31.07.2009

Ritika ... Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and another ... Respondents.

CORAM:
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
None for the petitioner.
Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate.

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a photostat copy of the admission form including undertaking/declaration filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner is stated to have given in writing that she does not want to opt any available seat. Copy of the admission form along with undertaking/declaration is taken on record. None is present on behalf of the petitioner.

From the above, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to seek admission.

Petition is dismissed.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

Sh Arun Bharti versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor (Court No-1), Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Arun Bharti,
s/o Sh. Narinder Bharti,
R/o # 11269, Hakikat Nagar,
Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

Ms. Jatinder Kaur,
B-16, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar,
Ludhiana-141012, Punjab.

Sh. R.P. Singh,
C/o Sh. G.S. Rai,
R/o # 72-A, Shastri Nagar,
Ludhiana, Punjab. ----------Appellants
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot, Punjab.
------------Respondent

AC No. 272 , 273 and 280 of 2009

Present: i) Sri A.S.Dhaliwal,on behalf of the appellants.
ii) Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent .
iii) Sri Vikas Kuthela, Advocate . on behalf of the Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College,Ludhiana.
ORDER
Heard.

It has been brought to the notice of the Court by Ld. Counsel for Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana, that identical applications for information, which are the subject matter of the present case, are already under consideration in AC nos. 314, 283 and 315 of 2009 in the Court of Honble SIC, Sri Kulbir Singh, in which the next date of hearing is 17-08-2009.

Deputy Registrar may please take appropriate action for transferring these three cases to the Honble Bench of SIC, Sri Kulbir Singh for disposal along with the other three cases already pending before him.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner Punjab

Sh Chuni Lal Kashyap versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Chuni Lal Kashyap,
S/o Lte Sh. K.R. Kashyap,
4-Jagdish Vohra Cottage,
Stokes Place, Shimla-171002.
________ Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Registrar,

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot.
__________ Respondent
AC No. 363 of 2009

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant
ii) Ms. Manu Goyal, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
The information required by the complainant has been brought by the respondent to the Court. The complainant has requested for an adjournment.
The information submitted by the respondent is sent with these orders to the complainant for his information. An opportunity is given to the complainant to point out deficiencies, if any, in the information being sent to him, at 10 AM on 20-8-2009.
(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
16th July, 2009 Punjab

JASDEEP SINGH Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:- 10.07.2009

1. C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008
Jasdeep Singh .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)

2. C.W.P.No.15857 of 2008
Gourav Sharma .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)

3. C.W.P.No.16047 of 2008
Sumeet Verma and others .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

4. C.W.P.No.16052 of 2008
Ajay Kumar and anr. .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

5. C.W.P.No.16056 of 2008
Harmanpreet Singh and anr. .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

6. C.W.P.No.16124 of 2008
Gautam Siddharatha and ors. .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

7. C.W.P.No.16205 of 2008
Amit Minocha .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and ors. ....Respondent(s)

8. C.W.P.No.16558 of 2008
Sumeet Sood .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

9. C.W.P.No.16559 of 2008
Rahul Thaman .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

10. C.W.P.No.16809 of 2008
Anupam Sharma .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

11. C.W.P.No.5762 of 2009
Nitin Bagga .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

12. C.W.P.No.6513 of 2009
Kulwinder Kaur .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and ors. ....Respondent(s)

13. C.W.P.No.6703 of 2009
Arshdeep Singh and others .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and anr. ....Respondent(s)

14. C.W.P.No.14156 of 2008
Charanjeet Kaur, B.Sc. (Nursing) .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)

15. C.W.P.No.16159 of 2008,
Nisha Kalyan, B.Sc. (Nursing) .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)

CORAM:-
Honble Mr.Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice
Honble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Honble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih

Present:-
Mr.R.S.Bajaj,Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Mr. Arun Takhi,
Ms.Anupama Takhi, Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Mr.Ravi Kant,
Mr.R.L.Luthra, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr.Anupam Gupta, Mr.T.S.Dhindsa,
Mr.Ashish Rawal, Ms.Meenu Sharma, Advocates, for the respondents.

Augustine George Masih, J.
Through this order, we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.14156 of 2008, 15852 of 2008, 15857 of 2008, 16047 of 2008, 16052 of 2008, 16056 of 2008, 16124 of 2008, 16159 of 2008, 16205 of 2008, 16558 of 2008, 16559 of 2008, 16809 of 2008, 5762 of 2009, 6513 of 2009 and 6703 of 2009.

All the above-mentioned writ petitions relate to the students pursuing Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Courses, wherein they are claiming that they are not being permitted to take the next Higher Professional Examination although they have not as yet availed/exhausted all the available chances to clear the earlier Lower Professional Examination provided to them under the Ordinance except for the petitioner-Nitin Bagga in C.W.P.No.5762 of 2009 wherein he has availed of all the four chances to clear the Second Professional Examination and is studying in the third professional but his form is not being sent for taking the Third Professional Examination as he has failed to clear the Second Professional Examination. Apart from these cases, C.W.P.No.14156 of 2008 and C.W.P.No.16159 of 2008 are the cases preferred by the students pursuing Bachelor of Science in Nursing (4 years) Degree Programme (Annual System) wherein they have not been allowed to take the next Higher Professional Examination as they had not cleared the earlier Lower Professional Examination. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are basing their claim on a judgment of this Court in Aseempreet Kundi and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (1) SCT 683, to contend that although they may not have cleared all the subjects of the earlier Lower Professional Course but since they had completed the academic period of studies to take the next Higher Professional Course Examination, they will be eligible to appear in this Higher Professional Examination as they have a right to clear the earlier Lower Professional Examination within the permissible attempts provided under the Regulations, which have yet not been exhausted by them. The petitioners have further placed reliance on Division Bench judgments of this Court in Parampreet Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (C.W.P.No.3979 of 2007 decided on 16.4.2007), Himanshu and another vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others, (C.W.P.No.4487 of 2007 decided on 9.5.2007), and Bikramjit Singh and another vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others, (C.W.P.No.17180 of 2006 decided on 16.11.2006).

Upon notice having been issued, the respondent-University in its written statement has taken a stand that the requirement of the Ordinances governing the Course mandates the clearance of all the subjects of the earlier Professional Course before a candidate becomes eligible to take the next Professional Examination. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tarun Mohan and others vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others, (C.W.P.No.17396 of 2007 decided on 29.11.2007), wherein it has been held that a candidate cannot claim a right to appear in the next Higher Professional Examination without passing the earlier Lower Professional Examination as mandated under the Ordinances governing the course in question.

These cases came up before a Division Bench for motion hearing on 30.9.2008, when apart from noticing the conflict in the view taken by this Court in the above-mentioned decisions, also found that the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab and others vs. Suchintan and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1761, has not been examined in any of the judgments which may have a bearing on the controversy raised and involved in the present set of writ petitions. Keeping in view the interest of the students and the fact that the interpretation of the Ordinances will have a recurring effect and also to resolve the dispute between the conflicting views taken by the Benches of this Court, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative decision. This is how these cases have come up before this Bench for consideration.

Counsel representing the petitioners in these writ petitions submit that the petitioners are entitled to four attempts, including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear, to clear each professional examination. They having availed of three attempts, in which they failed to clear all the subjects in the Second Professional Examination, still have one more chance left. Counsel submit that the petitioners are not being allowed to take the Third Professional Examination. Reference has been made to Ordinance 10 ( iv ) wherein it has been stated that the candidates who failed in one or more subjects of the Second Professional Examination shall be allowed to clear all the subjects of the Second Professional BAMS Examination in four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear. On this basis, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that although the petitioners have been promoted under the Ordinance to keep term in Third Professional Course and they have indeed attended the theory and practical classes and have fulfilled the academic requirements of period of study of that professional but still they are not being allowed to appear in the Third Professional Examination only on the ground that they have not passed all the subjects of the Second Professional Examination. It has been submitted that there is direct conflict between Clause (iii) and Clause (iv) of Ordinance 10. A right which has been conferred by Clause (iv) of the Ordinance on the one hand to clear the subjects of the Second Professional Examination in four consecutive attempts has been taken away by clause (iii) of the same Ordinance on the other hand without the petitioners having availed of all four consecutive attempts. It appears to be a very anomalous situation where four consecutive attempts, including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear in the examination, have been granted and they have been also promoted to the next Higher Professional but merely on account of their failure to clear all subjects of the Second Professional Examination in three attempts without availing the fourth attempt, they are being debarred from appearing in the Third Professional Examination. This, according to the petitioners, would lead to withdrawing a benefit which has been conferred upon the candidates by one clause of the Ordinance by another clause which does not allow them to avail the benefit so conferred upon such candidates. It has, thus, been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that a harmonious construction of the two clauses of the Ordinances needs to be resorted to so that the petitioners are not deprived of a beneficial right and they do not lose valuable time leading to they being forced to sit out because of clause (iii) of Ordinance 10 which mandates clearance of all subjects before taking the Third Professional Examination.

Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioners be allowed to take the Third Professional Examination along with the fourth attempt to clear all papers of the Second Professional Examination available to them under Ordinance 10 (iv) so that no clause of the Ordinance is offended and the petitioners do not lose valuable time of their courses and do not lag behind and rather complete the courses with other batch-mates. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed by the counsel on a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in Aseempreet Kundis case (supra) which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bikramjit Singhs case (supra) and thereafter in Himanshus case (supra). Reliance has also been placed on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Parampreet Kaurs case (supra). In view of these judgments of this Court, counsel for the petitioners submit that similar relief deserves to be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petitions for being similarly situated.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the provisions as contained in the Ordinance governing the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Science Course are clear and unambiguous.

When the language itself is clear, no other meaning except what is stated in the Ordinance should be taken to be correct. The question of harmonious construction or the application of the principles of reading down would not come into effect as in Aseempreet Kundis case (supra). He urged that the offending Ordinance which came up for interpretation before this Court in Aseempreet Kundis case (supra) stands amended and clause (vii) of Ordinance 5 (d) deleted and in any case, the same would have no bearing on the present cases as the Ordinance under question in this set of cases is different from what was in question before the learned Single Judge in Aseempreet Kundis case (supra). He contended that the claim of the petitioners relates to Ordinance 10 (iii) of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery which has been dealt with and authoritatively decided against the students by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarun Mohan vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others (C.W.P.No.17396 of 2007 decided on 29.11.2007) holding therein that the requirement of the Ordinance 10 Clause (iii) was not in conflict with Regulation 8.1 of Indian Medicines Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986, framed under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. He further argued that the Court had held that the petitioner in that case could not, thus, claim a right to appear in the 3 rd Professional Examination without passing all the subjects of the 2 nd Professional Examination. He, on this basis, submitted that judgment in Tarun Mohans case (supra), which relates to Ordinance 10 (iii) of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Course, is fully applicable to the present set of writ petitions as the same ordinance is in question here, compliance of requirement as mandated therein before being eligible to take the 3 rd Professional Examination, having been upheld by this Court.

We have given our careful consideration with submissions made at the Bar and gone through the records of the cases.

The precise question which needs to be answered in the present cases is; whether a candidate who has failed in one or more subjects in an earlier Professional Examination and who has been permitted to attend classes in the next Higher Professional Course as per the Ordinance and having completed the period of study of the said Higher Professional Course, can be allowed to take the Examination of the Higher Professional Course without clearing all the subjects of the Lower Professional Examination, when the attempts provided for clearing the Lower Professional Examination under the Ordinance are still available and have not been exhausted by the candidate?

Answer to this question would lie in the Ordinances governing the courses.

Firstly, dealing with the cases where the students are pursuing Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery, the Ordinances, relevant for resolving the controversy read as follows:-

4. Duration of Course For the students admitted in 2001 and onwards (Amended by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 5.12.2001 vide Para 11(U) (c)

1. First Prof BAMS 1 ½ years
2. Second Prof BAMS 1 ½ years
3. Third Prof BAMS 1 ½ years
4. Internship 1 year
5. Degree to be awarded

Ayurvedacharya BAMS ( Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) The candidate shall be awarded Ayurvedacharya BAMS ( Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) degree after completion of prescribed courses of study extending over the prescribed period and passing the Final Examination and satisfactory completion of one year rotatory compulsory internship in the parent institution after passing in all the subjects in the final examination.

6 to 8 x

9. First Professional Examination ( to be held at the end of 1 year and 6 months).

(i) (a) The 1 st Professional period shall be 18 months duration and the examination shall ordinarily be completed by the end of next year November/December. The Supplementary examination of 1 st Professional shall be held within six months of declaration of result.

(b) A candidate who fails in one or more subjects of First Professional Examination may be allowed to keep term in Second Professional course. Only those students who pass in all subjects of 1 st Prof. BAMS examination shall be allowed to take Second Professional Examination.

The students shall be allowed clear all the subjects of First Professional BAMS examination in four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear, failing which they shall have to appear in all the subjects of the First Professional BAMS examinations. ( Amended by BOM on 28.5.2004, vide para 77 and on 11.11.2004, vide para 4 (c )).

(ii) The First Professional BAMS Examination shall be in the following subjects and candidate shall be required to pass all the subject:-

(iii) and (iv) x
10. Second Professional Examinations i) The Second Professional course shall start in January/February following the First Professional Examination and the Examination shall be held in May/June of the year in which a candidate completes 18 months of study. Candidates passing first Professional in supplementary examination shall not be allowed summer vacation so that they undergo instruction during this period. (Amended by BOM on 24.5.2004, vide para 77).

ii) The Second Professional Examination shall be held one and half years after First Professional Examination and in the following subjects. Each Theory Paper will be three hours duration.

iii) A candidate who fail in one or more subjects of Second Professional Examination may be allowed to keep term in Third Professional Course. Any such candidate will be allowed to appear in the Third Professional Examination only after passing all the subjects of Second Professional Examination.

(Amended by BOM on 28.5.2004, vide para 77).

iv) The supplementary examination to Second professional shall be held ordinarily in November/December and those who remain failed in any subject shall be eligible to appear in the subsequent Second Professional Examination.

These candidates shall be allowed to clear all the subjects of Second Professional BAMS examination in four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear in the examination, failing which they shall have to appear in all the subjects of the Second Professional Examination. (Amended by BOM on 28.5.2004, vide para 77 and on 11.11.2004, vide para 4 (c)).

11. Final Professional Examination

B. For students admitted in 2001 and onwards The Final Professional Examination shall be held one and half year after the Second Professional Examination and shall comprise the following subjects:-

(ii) If a candidate secures re-appear /failed in one or more subjects in Final Professional Examination he/she shall be eligible to appear in those subjects in subsequent Final Professional Examination which may be held every six months.

The students shall be allowed to (sic.) clear all the subjects of Final Professional BAMS examination in four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear, failing which they shall have to appear in all the subjects of the Final Professional BAMS examinations. (Amended by BOM on 28.5.2004 , vide para 77 and on 11.11.2004, vide para 4 (c)).

(iii) He/she shall not be allowed to commence Internship training without passing all the subjects of Final Professional BAMS examination.

12.Compulsory Internship

12.1 x

12.2 The students who had joined the BAMS Course in 2001 or thereafter shall go in for compulsory Internship after passing Final Prof. BAMS Course.

Duration of Internship shall be of one year as under:-

12.3 After completion of internship the concerned Principal will certify that the student has satisfactorily completed internship. Thereafter the student will be awarded the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery(BAMS).

A perusal of the above Ordinances dealing with the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery leaves no manner of doubt that it is a complete code in itself governing each and every aspect of the course/training which has to be imparted to the students.

The requirement, therefore, as mandated in these Ordinances has to be given full effect to. It has been time and again held by the Honble Supreme Court that in the matters of academic standards, the Courts should refrain from interfering with and interpreting the Rules and Regulations holding the field as such matters need to be left to the care of the Experts in those fields. Here reference may be made to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, State of Kerala vs. Kumari T.P.Roshana, (1979) 1 SCC 572 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 1 SCC 211. The rationale underlying the above pronouncements is that Courts do not have the expertise and the resources required to go into the questions of devising the curriculum for the professional courses like the one in question before us. A great deal of technical expertise and knowledge is required for meting out the complications and requirements of the Professional Courses.

It is for this reason that the Honble Supreme Court has cautioned the Courts not to interfere or interpret the matters relating to academic standards which would include Professional Courses as well. The requirement of each Professional Course is specific which only the experts can delve into, choose and decide the best as per the needs, so that the Society receives the most talented and professionally trained persons when they pass out of their colleges to serve the people at large.

On consideration of Ordinances 9, 10 and 11, as reproduced above, it emerges that the same deal with not only the duration of the Professional Courses but also the Examinations which are required to be cleared by the students. In an ideal situation a candidate should clear all subjects of the Professional Examination in which he is studying and appearing in the very first attempt. And yet, there may be reasons beyond the control of a candidate which would not permit him to take the examination in one or more subjects. It is only to help those candidates, that apart from the first attempt in which a candidate is eligible to appear, three consecutive attempts in addition have been provided under the Ordinances.

Out of these three consecutive attempts, two attempts are available to the candidates before the next Higher Professional Examination is to be held and the petitioners herein have availed of the same but have failed to clear all the subjects. No doubt, a 3 rd additional chance is available to them as per the Ordinance, which they can undoubtedly avail of, but that would be at the cost of missing a chance to appear in the Higher Professional Examination. A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in a
Professional Examination may be allowed to keep term in the next Higher Professional Course but the Ordinance provides that any such candidate will be allowed to appear in the Higher Professional Examination only after passing all subjects of the Lower Professional Examination; which the petitioners have failed to do.

The Ordinances would further show that eligibility for admission to the Higher Professional Course is entirely different from the eligibility to appear in an examination. A candidate may be eligible for admission to the Higher Professional Course but merely on admission to the Higher Professional Course he will not be/become eligible to appear in the Higher Professional Examination as well, unless he fulfills the requirement of eligibility to take the said examination. Therefore, the eligibility for admission to the Higher Professional Course and eligibility to take the Higher Professional Examination are two different things, the requirement of which is dependent on the relevant Ordinances and Clauses.

If the requirement under the Ordinances/Clauses is not fulfilled for one reason or the other, the candidate cannot claim that since one of the requirements stands fulfilled, the other requirement would automatically stand complied with.

The Ordinances, when analysed carefully make the intention behind the same evident.

Ordinance 9 deals with the First Professional Examination. Clause (i)(a) states that First Professional shall be of 18 months duration. Clause (i)(b) thereof provides that a candidate who fails in one or more subjects of the First Professional Examination may be allowed to keep term in the Second Professional Examination. However, according to this clause, only those students who pass in all the subjects of the First Professional Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Examination shall be allowed to take the Second Professional Examination.

Clause (ii) of this very Ordinance provides the subjects of which the candidate is required to take examination in the First Professional in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. It further states that the candidate shall be required to pass all the subjects. Ordinance 10 deals with the Second Professional Examination. Clause (i) provides that Second Professional Examination shall be held on completion of 18 months study.

Clause (ii) thereof gives the details of the subjects in which the candidate is required to take examinations. Clause (iii) provides that a candidate who fails in one or more subjects of the Second Professional Examination may be allowed to keep term in the Third Professional Course. However, it also mandates that any such candidate will only be allowed to appear in the Third Professional Examination after passing all subjects of the Second Professional Examination. Ordinance 11 deals with the Final Professional Examination. Clause (i) (B) provides that the Final Professional Examination shall be held one and a half year after the Second Professional Examination and shall comprise of the subjects enumerated therein. Clause (ii) thereof provides that if a candidate secures reappear/fail in one or more subjects in Final Professional Examination, he/she shall be eligible to appear in those subjects in subsequent Final Professional Examinations which may be held after every six months. Clause (iii), however, stipulates that such candidate shall not be allowed to commence Internship training without passing all the subjects of the Final Professional BAMS Examination.

Ordinance 12 provides for Compulsory Internship. Clause 12.2 provides that the candidate shall go in for Compulsory Internship after passing Final Professional BAMS Course which shall be of a duration of one year. Ordinance 9(i)(b), 10 (iv) and 11(ii) are similarly worded and provide for four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which the candidate is eligible to appear, in order to allow a candidate to clear all subjects of the respective Professional Examination, covered by the said Ordinances. They further provide that where a candidate fails to clear all the subjects in the attempts granted under these clauses of the Ordinances, he/she shall have to appear in all subjects of that Professional BAMS Examination, meaning thereby that a candidate is required to clear all subjects of the Lower Professional Examination before he/she can be allowed to appear in the Higher Professional Examination. This is the Scheme of the Ordinances.

Each professional is of a duration of 18 months. A candidate who fails to clear all subjects in the first attempt in which he/she is eligible to appear in a Professional Examination, gets two other consecutive attempts to clear the subjects he/she has failed in of that very Professional Examination before the next Higher Professional Examination in normal course is held. The mandate as provided under Ordinance 9 (i) (b) and 10 (iii) which requires the candidate to pass all subjects of the First Professional Examination and the Second Professional Examination before he/she can be allowed to appear in the Second Professional Examination and Third Professional Examination respectively, has a cardinal purpose to serve.

It has been claimed by the petitioners that under the Ordinances, they have been provided four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear but they have been able to exhaust only three attempts, leaving one more attempt available to them to clear the said Professional Examination. As per the condition imposed for the candidate to be eligible to appear in the next Higher Professional Examination, this attempt of the candidate stands extinguished and the candidate would be losing six months, in the process leading to his/her lagging behind his/her batch-mates, although he/she still had one more attempt to clear all the subjects of the Lower Professional Examination as per the Ordinance itself. As is apparent from above, these are grace attempts provided for the candidate to clear the subjects where the candidate has failed in the examination. If a candidate is allowed to take his fourth consecutive attempt to clear the Lower Professional Examination along with the Higher Professional Examination, as has been claimed by the petitioners, an anomalous situation may arise where a candidate may clear the Higher Professional Examination but may fail to clear the Lower Professional Examination. This would create an absurd situation where despite each professional being an independent and separate entity in itself, leading to a progressive promotion from First Professional to the Second Professional and thereafter Second Professional to the Third Professional, a candidate without passing the Lower Professional Examination clears the Higher Professional Examination, which is neither the intention of the Ordinances nor is it as per the Scheme formulated for the Course. Further, the Scheme of the Course as spelt out in the Ordinances is clear and unambiguous which provides for spreading of the Course into three Professionals, each being of equal duration of 1 ½ years as is apparent from Ordinance 4. Distribution of the course is such that not only the theory and practical marks including the internal assessment has been provided in the Ordinances but duration for which each subject, number of lectures to be taught and practical demonstrations to be held have also been provided under the Ordinances. None of the Professionals are co-related with each other and each one is independent of the other. It is with this intention and purpose that each professional has been compartmentalized separately. They have separate subjects which are to be taught, that include theory and practicals leading to a gradual promotion of a candidate from one professional to the next professional for which passing of all the subjects of the Lower Professional is mandated to be eligible for appearance in the next Higher Professional Examination. Compulsory Internship, which has been provided under Ordinance 12 is also independent in itself as Ordinance 11 (iii) clearly depicts, as it provides, that a candidate shall not be allowed to commence Internship training without passing of the subjects of the Final Professional BAMS Examination and similarly, Ordinance 12.2 stipulates that a candidate shall go in for Compulsory Internship after passing Final BAMS Professional Examination which shall be of one year duration. The Scheme of the Course, therefore, requires a candidate to pass the Lower Professional Examination first, for being eligible to appear in the next Higher Professional Examination. The fourth consecutive attempt, thus, is a concession which has been granted under the Ordinance as a grace attempt to a candidate so that he may have to appear only in those subjects which he had fail to pass in that Professional Examination, failing which the candidate shall have to appear in all the subjects of the Lower Professional Examination. In this process, it may so happen that the candidate may lose six months as he will have to sit back to clear the subjects which he had failed to pass in the Lower Professional Examination.

For this, the candidate alone has to be blamed and none else as that is the result of his/her own making which can be attributed to the candidates negligence, non-seriousness, lack of responsibility and dedication or such like reasons. The Ordinances have not been formulated to help, support and encourage such candidates. The mandate of the Ordinances cannot be violated to avoid such a situation as the Ordinances cannot be so construed that the pure and simple language of the Ordinances as well as the purpose for which they have been enacted, stand destroyed with impunity.

In the light of the above, a candidate who although may be eligible for admission to a Higher Professional Course but would not be eligible to appear in the examination of that Higher Professional Course unless he passes all subjects of the Lower Professional Examination as mandated under the Ordinance. The four consecutive attempts which have been provided under the Ordinances to the students are grace chances to cover up the contingencies which may occur and are beyond the control of the candidate, giving him/her ample opportunity and chance to catch up with the other batch-mates but that would in itself not make him/her eligible for taking the Higher Professional Examination without passing all the subjects of the Lower Professional Examination.

Reference, at this stage, may be made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab and others vs. Suchintan and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court, 1761, in support of the view we have taken wherein the Honble Supreme Court in paras 25, 26, 33, 35 and 39 has held as follows:-

25. Here again, eligibility for admission to Second D.H.M.S. Examination is based on two conditions:

(i) A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously. This means one year must elapse between the passing of the first Year examination and taking of Second Year examination.

(ii) Subsequent to the passing the first Year,

(a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical and practical;

(b) for a period of at least one year;

(c ) to the satisfaction of the head of the college.

26. Thus, unless and until, these two conditions are satisfied, a student is ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S. Examination.

27. to 32 x
33. Supposing he passes in that subject or subjects in the supplementary examination he is declared to have passed at the examination as a whole. This should obviously be so; because once he completes all the subjects, he has to necessarily be declared to have passed. Merely on this language, “declared to have passed at the examination as a whole”, we are unable to understand as to how the “doctrine of relation back” could ever be invoked. The invocation of such a doctrine leads to strange results. When a candidate completes the subjects only in the supplementary examination, then alone, he passes the examination. It is that pass which is declared . If the “doctrine of relation back” is applied, it would have the effect of deeming to have passed in the annual examination, held at the end of 12 months, which on the face of it is untrue.

34. x

35. Whatever it is, a candidate has to complete all the subjects within four chances.

Should he fail to do so, he will have to undergo the course in all subjects for one year unless of course, he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause (viii). Nowhere do we find in Regulation 11 a system of carry forward. On the contrary, it is detention every year. The High Court was moved by the fact that if a candidate were to pass in supplementary examination after passing the examination, he will have to remain at home till the next annual examination. So, he is allowed to undergo a course for next academic year provisionally. On this line of reasoning, clauses (iv) and (vi) of Regulation 11 are sought to be “harmoniously construed”. We are unable to accept this line of reasoning or the so-called harmonious construction because it does violence to the language of the Regulation. It clearly violates the mandatory requirements of Regulation 9. It has already been noted as to what those requirements are.

To repeat:

(i) The lapse of one year period between the passing of First D.H.M.S. examination.

(ii) Subsequent to the passing of the First D.H.M.S. examination to undergo the course of study for one year.

Therefore, if a candidate passes in the supplementary examination, the requirement of one year cannot be enforced.

Worse still is a case of a student who passes only at the next annual examination. Can he be allowed to take the Second D.H.M.S. examination without even completing the First?

Should he by chance pass the Second D.H.M.S. and not complete the First, since he is still one more chance to take this examination, what is to happen? The situation is absurd. The same principle should apply to Regulation 10 where the lapse is one and half years.

36 to 38 x
39. If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary examination that is his own making. To avoid such a situation, the Regulations cannot be construed causing violence to the language.

The Honble Supreme Court has further held that the Regulations which are plain and susceptible only to literal interpretation should be construed as it is without introducing an element of ambiguity and absurdity.

In the light of what has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court, and as has been reproduced above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The Ordinances have to be given a plain and literal interpretation as the same are unambiguous and clear and admit one meaning only. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted, that would amount to re-writing the Ordinances and their clauses, which is neither called for in the present case nor is it permissible, as they deal with and hold their own separate fields, there being no conflict or contradiction between them.

Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhoor Singh Hayer and others vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others, 2009 (1) RSJ 243, while dealing with the Regulations relating to M.B.B.S. Course, held that the general scheme of the Regulations which are intended to maintain academic standards and promote completion of Course by ensuing through satisfactory and proper attention to details as stipulated in the said Regulations cannot be watered down. While dealing with regulation 7.7, it was held that the said Regulation does not regulate eligibility to appear in the Second Professional Examination. Even when a candidate has passed the supplementary examination and joins the main batch of students, he may still remain ineligible to appear in the examination if he does not satisfy other conditions for appearance in the examination as mandated by the Regulations. Where the scheme of the Regulations requires studies to be undertaken by the students in a systematic and methodical manner, giving proper attention to each subject taught in each semester including all aspects of training programme other than lecture studies cannot be overlooked. It was further held that the eligibility to be promoted to a higher professional semester, would not make the candidate eligible to appear in the examination if the conditions mandated for such qualification are not satisfied by the candidates.

We have now reached a stage, in our endeavour to find a proper considered response to the question we had posed in our quest to interpret the Ordinances involved and to resolve the dispute between the onflicting views taken by the Benches of this Court which had led to the present reference to a Larger Bench, where we can conclude by an
answer.

The basic judgment which requires consideration and which has been relied upon by the petitioners is in the case of Aseempreet Kundis case (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge was dealing with Ordinance 5 relating to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy Course, which reads as under:-

5. First Professional B.P.T. Examination:

(d) The First Professional B.P.T. examination shall be in the following subjects and candidate shall be required to pass all the subjects:-

(v) A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in his/her Ist attempt, shall be permitted to attend classes in 2 nd Prof. B.P.T. course. However, if a candidate who fails to pass all the subjects in the subsequent examination shall be reverted to Ist Prof. B.P.T. course forfeiting all the benefits of earlier promotion.

(vi) A candidate who passes in one or more subjects shall be exempted from appearing in these subject at a subsequent examination, but the candidate must pass the examination in a maximum of six attempts, failing which he/she shall have to appear in all the subjects of the examination.

(vii) However, those candidate who clear all the subjects of Ist Professional B.P.T. course in 6 th attempt shall be promoted to 2 nd Prof. B.P.T. course after the declaration of the result, and thereafter they shall have to complete the period of one academic year of study in order to become eligible to appear in 2 nd Prof. B.P.T.
examination.

6. Second Professional B.P.T. Examination:

The Second Professional B.P.T. Examination shall be open to a person who (b) has previously passed the First Prof. B.P.T. examination of this University or an examination of any other recognized University/Institution in India considered equivalent for the purpose by the University.

While adopting the principle of reading down and applying the doctrine of harmonious construction, while interpreting clauses (v), (vi), (vii) of Ordinance 5 (d) and 6 (b) it was held as follows:-

A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in his/her first attempt, shall be permitted to attend classes in 2 nd Prof. BPT course.

A candidate who passes in one or more subjects shall be exempted from appearing in these subjects at a subsequent examination but the candidate must pass the examination in a maximum of six attempts, failing which he/she shall have to appear in all the subjects of the examination.

Those candidates who had not cleared all the subjects of Ist Prof. BPT course and who had completed the academic year of studies of 2 nd Prof. BPT course shall be eligible to appear in 2 nd BPT examination and, if such candidates clear all the subjects of Ist Prof. BPT course in six attempts shall be deemed to have been regularly promoted to 2 nd Prof. BPT course. However, if a candidate fails to pass all the subjects of Ist Prof. In six attempts, then he/she shall be reverted to Ist Prof.

BPT course, forfeiting all the benefits of earlier promotion.

In Bikramjit Singhs case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court following the judgment in the case of Aseempreet Kundis case (supra) has allowed the writ petition in the same terms. Similar was the position in the case of Himanshus case (supra) wherein the counsel for the University had proceeded to concede before the Court that the claim of the petitioners was covered by the judgments in Aseempreet Kundis and Bikramjit Singhs cases (supra). This leads us to the next judgment of this Court in the case of Parampreet Kaur and others (supra), wherein a Division Bench of this Court had granted the relief to the petitioners who were pursuing 3 rd year Professional B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. As per the interim order passed by this Court, the University was directed to accept the application forms of the petitioners therein for the 3 rd Year B.Sc. (Nursing) Examination. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Court was informed that the application forms of the petitioners to appear in the annual examination for the 3 rd Year had been accepted by the University and in view of the admitted position, that all the petitioners continued to attend the classes for the 3 Rd Year throughout and had also cleared their 2 nd Year Annual Examination by appearing in the supplementary examination and they fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in the Regulation of the Ordinance, the University was, directed to regularize the admission forms submitted by the petitioners to appear in the annual examination of the 3 rd Year Bachelor of Science (Nursing) Course.

The above position leads us to a situation where none of the judgments rendered by the above-mentioned Division Benches of this Court was on consideration of the merits on the case or of the Ordinances applicable to the examinations for which the petitioners were craving indulgence to appear in. In all the Division Bench decisions referred to above, the orders were passed on the basis of the concession given by the counsel appearing for the respondents. The only judgment which considered and interpreted the Ordinances was a judgment of this Court in the case of Aseempreet Kundis case (supra). The said judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge interpreting the Ordinances as they stood at that time. It has been brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing of the case by the learned counsel for the respondentUniversity that the said Ordinances and clauses stand amended. So much so, clause (vii) of Ordinance 5(d) which was the real offending clause which led to the passing of that judgment at that stage stands deleted. The present prevailing Ordinances relating to Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) has been supplied to us. In view of the amendment and deletion of the offending clauses of the Ordinances, the ratio as laid down in this case cannot be made applicable now when considered in the light of the Ordinances prevailing at present. In any case, the Ordinances under consideration before the learned Single Judge in Aseempreet Kundis case (supra) are not pari materia with the Ordinances which are being considered in the present cases and further, those Ordinances which were under consideration in the said case related to Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) whereas the present cases relate to the Ordinances which are dealing with the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery and Bachelor of Science in Nursing ( 4 Years ) Degree Programme, which have no semblance or connection with each other. No similarity has, thus, been found between the two, which would have any bearing on the present cases.

Yet another aspect which renders the veracity of these judgments as regards they being good in law is that in none of these cases the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Suchintans case (supra) been considered, this for the reason that the said judgment was not brought to the notice of the Court. Had it been otherwise, the decisions would have been different.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment rendered in Aseempreet Kundis case, (supra) does not hold the field. The Division Bench judgments as rendered in Bikramjit Singhs, Himanshus and Parampreet Kaurs cases (supra), since were based on concessions of the counsel for the respondents without going into the merits of the case or the Ordinances dealing with the Course in question, do not lay down any law which has any binding effect.

Now coming to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tarun Mohans case, (supra) where this Court while dealing with Ordinance 10 (iii) relating to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery had held that a candidate could not claim a right to appear in the 3 rd professional examination without passing all subjects of the 2 nd professional examination as required under Ordinance 10 (iii). The view taken by this Division Bench is the same to the conclusion which we have reached above. We, therefore, approve the same by holding that it lays down the correct law.

Conflicting views taken by the Benches having been resolved as above, the answer to the question has to be in the negative, as we have, on analysis of the Ordinances, come to a conclusion that the eligibility to join the next Higher Professional is separate and distinct from being eligible to appear in that Higher Professional Examination as they are two different conditions and stages of the Course, independent of each other with no corelation amongst them, each providing for its own separate eligibility conditions, which a candidate is required to fulfill to avail access to such condition/stage. Thus, a candidate who has failed in one or more subjects in the Earlier Professional Examination and who has been permitted to attend classes in the Higher Professional Course as per the Ordinance, although having completed the period of study for the said Higher Professional Course, cannot be allowed to take the examination of the Higher Professional Course without passing in all subjects of the Lower Professional Examination irrespective of the fact that the attempts provided for clearing the Lower Professional Examination are still available and have not been exhausted by the candidate.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in Civil Writ Petitions No.15852 of 2008, 15857 of 2008, 16047 of 2008, 16052 of 2008, 16056 of 2008, 16124 of 2008, 16205 of 2008, 16558 of 2008, 16559 of 2008, 16809 of 2008, 5762 of 2009, 6513 of 2009 and 6703 of 2009 preferred by the students of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery and dismiss the same.

In the light of the above position in law, we proceed to examine the Ordinances dealing with Bachelor of Science in Nursing (4 years) Degree Programme (Annual System) as applicable in C.W.P.Nos.14156 of 2008 Charanjeet Kaur vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and 16159 of 2008 Nisha Kalyan vs. Baba Farid University of Health
Sciences The relevant Ordinances read as follows:-

1. Duration:

The duration of the course for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing shall be of four years including compulsory internship. This course starts in July every year.

2 and 3 x

4. Examination:-
4.1 The annual examination for each year shall ordinarily be held in the month of May/June on such dates as may be fixed by the University. For failed / reappear candidates, a supplementary examination shall be held in the month of November/December or on such other dates as may be fixed by the university. To appear in the annual examination candidate must have the following:

i) has been on the college roll for one academic year preceding the examination.

ii) of good character

iii) of having attended not less than 75 per cent of lectures and practicals held in each of the subjects and 90 percent of clinical practicals in Nursing subjects in which she wishes to be examined; and

iv) Should be medically fit.

v) of having secured at least 35% marks of the total marks fixed for internal assessment in each subject, separately, in order to be eligible to appear in all University examinations. The re-appear/fail students will not be reassessed every time for the purpose of Internal Assessment and their previous score of assessment will be carried forward. (Amended by Board of Management on 11.11.2004, vide para 18 and on 31.11.2006, vide para 35).

Internal Assessment should be submitted to the University at least two weeks before the commencement of theory examinations.

vi) has his/her name submitted to the University by the Principal of the College.

4.2 to 7 x
8. Minimum Pass Marks and Promotion:-

8.1 The minimum number of marks required to pass the examination shall be:-

a) 35 per cent in the subjects of English and computer which will include internal assessment.

b) 50 per cent in theory in each subject other than English and Computer, which will include internal assessment.

c) The candidate is required to pass each theory and practical exams separately to be declared successful in that subjects.

8.2 A candidate who passes in one or more subjects shall be exempted from appearing in these subjects at the subsequent examinations, but he/she must pass the concerned examination in a maximum of four attempts commencing with the first exam of his/her own class failing which he/she shall have to appear in all subjects of the examination.

8.3 A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in his/her first attempt in B.Sc. (Nursing) 1 st /2 nd year examination shall be permitted to attend classes of next higher class. However , he/she must pass the lower examination at least one term (6 months) before he/she is allowed to appear in the next higher examination.

Provided that a candidate shall be allowed to join Internship/4 th year class only after passing all the subjects of 3 rd Year B.Sc. (Nursing) class. (Amended by BOM on 31.1.2006,vide para 39).

9. x

10. Internship

10.1 Every candidate shall undergo the compulsory rotatory Internship in the parent institution/hospital as laid down by the Faculty of Nursing Science for a period of 40 weeks, after passing the third year examination and before being granted the degree.

The 4 th year class and internship shall run concurrently.

10.2 On successful completion of Internship as certified by Principal under whom the training was done, a candidate shall be eligible for award of B.Sc. (Nursing) degree.

10.3 xxx
A perusal of the above would show that as per Ordinance 8.3, a candidate who fails in one or more subjects in his/her first attempt in B.Sc. (Nursing) first/second year examination shall be permitted to attend the classes of the next higher class but would be eligible to appear in the next higher examination only when he/she passes the Lower Examination at least one term (six months) before he/she has to appear in the next higher examination. A proviso to this Ordinance further clarifies that a candidate
shall only be allowed to join the internship/4 th year class after passing all subjects of 3 rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class. The requirement, therefore, is clear that the candidate has to pass the Lower Examination at least six months before he/she is permitted to appear in the Higher Professional
Examination and to join Internship/4 th year classes passing of all subjects of 3 rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class is a must. As has been held above, the eligibility for admission to the higher class is different from eligibility to take the examination of the higher class. To be eligible to be permitted to attend the next higher class, does not necessarily entitle a candidate to be eligible to appear in the next higher examination. The requirement is different and, therefore, a candidate must be eligible to take the next higher examination by fulfilling all the conditions mandated under the Ordinance, failing which, he/she cannot claim it as a matter of right merely because all the chances and attempts which were available to the candidate had yet not been exhausted. It may not be out of way to mention here that the additional attempts which have been granted to the candidates are merely grace chances as the same cover the exceptional situations where a candidate is unable to take the examinations or is unable to clear the same.

In C.W.P.No.14156 of 2008 Charanjeet Kaur vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been denied admission to 3 rd year of the Course on the ground that she has not cleared 1 st year examination and had also not taken the examination of the 2 nd year as mandated under Ordinance 8.8 of the Ordinances. The requirement having not been fulfilled by her for being eligible to take the 2 nd year examination as she has not leared the 1 st year examination, she had no right nor was she eligible to take the 2 nd year examination and, therefore, the question of her being allowed to join 3 rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class would not arise at all.

After failing to clear one or more subjects in his/her first attempt in B.Sc. (Nursing) 1 st year examination, a candidate may be granted permission to attend classes of the 2 nd year class, however, to take the 2 nd year examination, the candidate must pass the Lower Examination at least one term (six months) before he/she can be allowed to appear in the next Higher examination. Having failed to do so, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is not sustainable and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

As regards C.W.P.No.16159 of 2008 Nisha Kalyan vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others, it is the contention of the petitioner that she was not being allowed to take the 4 th year B.Sc.(Nursing) examination to be held in the year November/December 2008 on the ground that she had cleared her 3 rd year examination held in May/June 2008 and had not completed one academic year on the college rolls preceding the date of examination.

Ordinance 4.1 lays down as to when the Annual and Supplementary Examinations shall be held, it also provides for the eligibility for a candidate to appear in the Annual Examination. Clause (i) thereof provides that the candidate must have been on the college roll for one academic year preceding the Examination. A perusal of the proviso to Ordinance 8.3 would clearly show that a candidate shall be allowed to join internship/4 th year class only after passing of 3 rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class meaning thereby that the general rule for permitting a candidate to attend classes of next higher class even if a candidate fails in one or more subjects in his/her first attempt would not apply. Further, this permission is only applicable to 1 st and 2 nd year examinations only. Ordinance 10 clearly spells out Internship and 10.1 thereof states that every candidate shall undergo Compulsory Rotation Internship in the parent institution/hospital as laid down by the Faculty of Nursing Science for a period of 40 weeks, after passing the Third Year Examination and before being granted the degree.

The 4 th year class and Internship shall run concurrently.

From a conjoint reading of Ordinance 4.1 (i), 8.3 and 10.1 it is clearly spelt out that a candidate will only be allowed to join Internship/4 th year class after passing all subjects of 3 rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class.

The petitioner has not fulfilled this condition. Ordinance 4.1 (i) comes into play only after the petitioner had passed all subjects of 3 rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class. She having not completed one academic year on the college rolls and, thus, having not fulfilled the eligibility condition as provided under the Ordinance for being eligible to to take the examination, no fault can be found with the action of the University in not allowing the petitioners to take the 4 th year examination.

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same also deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

(T.S.Thakur)
Chief Justice

(Jasbir Singh)
Judge

(Augustine George Masih)
Judge

Arun Bharti versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor (Court No-1), Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Arun Bharti,
s/o Sh. Narinder Bharti,
R/o # 11269, Hakikat Nagar,
Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

Ms. Jatinder Kaur,
B-16, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar,
Ludhiana – 141012, Punjab.

Sh. R.P. Singh,
C/o Sh. G.S. Rai,
R/o # 72-A, Shastri Nagar,
Ludhiana, Punjab.
----------Appellants
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadiq Road, Faridkot, Punjab.
----------- Respondent

AC No. 272 , 273 and 280 of 2009

Present: i) Sh. Arun Bharti, appellant in person and
Sri A.S.Dhaliwal,on behalf of the appellants
ii) Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent

ORDER
Heard.
These three cases are being dealt with by this single order since the respondent in all the cases is the same and the subject matter of the required information in all the three cases is also identical.

The facts in these cases are that applications for information held by Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Hospital and Research Institute, Ludhiana were made by the complainants to the PIO, Baba Farid University of Health Services, Faridkot. The PIO informed the complainants that the information required by them is held by the Dental College and transferred the applications of the complainants to College, under the provisions of the RTI Act. The complainants made applications for the required information to the Dental College but received a reply that Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College is a private body and is not a public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

In these complaints, the submission which has been made is that even if the Dental College is a private body, Baba Farid University should access the information required by the complainant under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and supply the same.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent was asked by the Court to give the details of the law under which the College is affiliated to the University, so that it may be determined whether the University has powers to access the information which is held by the College, but Ld. Counsel states that she has been engaged only last night and is therefore not fully prepared to argue this case today.

Sri A .S. Dhaliwal, representing the complainants in AC-273 and 280 / 2009 wishes to argue that Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College is not a private body and there are facts to show that it comes within the definition of the term “public authority” as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

This case is accordingly adjourned to 10 AM on 17-7-2009 for arguments on the following two points:-
i) Whether Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Ludhiana is a private body or a public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2009;
ii) Whether under the laws in force on the subject, the respondent is empowered to access information held by the College.

Copies of the additional submissions made by the complainant in this case have been given to Ld. Counsel for the respondent in the Court today.

I also find that although the notice of the Commission for the hearing today was issued on 8-6-2009, timely action was not taken by the respondent to defend these cases and a counsel for representing the University was appointed only last night, leading to a request for an adjournment, which has put the complainants to unnecessary loss of time and money. I, therefore, direct the respondent to compensate Sri Arun Bharti, appellant, and Sri A.S.Dhaliwal ,appearing on behalf of the two other appellants, with an amount of Rs. 500/-( Rupees Five Hundred) each, which should be disbursed to them before the next date of hearing.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab

Ashwani Rawal versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor (Court No-1), Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Ashwani Rawal,
R/o # 27, Type-III,
Income Tax Colony,
Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana (Pb.).
__________Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Sadik Road, Faridkot, Punjab.
__________ Respondent

AC No. 270 of 2009

Present:
i) Sh. A.S. Dhaliwal, on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Advocate on behalf of the respondent

ORDER
Heard.
The appellant in this case has mentioned in his appeal dated 22.04.2009 that he was not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO, and therefore he preferred an appeal to the PIO, who has not taken any decision on the same. In fact, as informed by the respondent, the first appellate authority is the Registrar of the University, and I therefore direct the PIO to forward the appeal of the appellant to the Registrar, who should dispose of the same with a speaking order within three weeks of its receipt.

In case the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the first appellate authority, he will be at liberty to file a second appeal to the Commission.
Disposed of.
(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
25th May, 2009 Punjab

DR RAJINDER KUMAR CHAWLA Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES and OTHERS CASE CWP No.11289 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


DATE OF DECISION: May 7, 2009

DR. RAJINDER KUMAR CHAWLA ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH ...RESPONDENTS SCIENCES and OTHERS

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

PRESENT:
MR. SUMEET MAHAJAN, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. HARJOT SINGH MANN, ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER.
NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 and 2.
MR. GURMINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is clearly covered by the ratio of judgement in CWP No.4698-CAT of 2004, decided on 13.2.2009.

Mr. Gurminder Singh, counsel for Medical Council of India admits that the case is covered by the ratio of the aforementioned judgement. He, however, submits that in similar matters, the Medical Council of India is planning to file SLPs in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The fact that the respondents want to file SLPs in similar matters would not be a ground to not to allow this writ petition in the same terms as CWP No.4698-CAT of 2004, titled as Medical Council of India vs.
Union of India etc.

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders (Annexure P-13 and P-14) and allow the writ petition in terms of the ratio in CWP No.4698-CAT of 2004.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
JUDGE

Shri CL Premy Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

2. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri C.L.Premy, Advocate,
# 244, Sector: 71,
S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali). Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University, Faridkot. Respondent

CC No.75/2009

Present: Shri C. L. Premi, Advocate, Complainant, in person.
Shri Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate , for Shri T. S. Dhindsa, Advocate, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Shri C. L. Premy, Complainant, states that observations on the response submitted by the Respondent, has been sent to the PIO on 15.4.2009 through Courier, with a copy to the Commission. The Respondent states that the same has been received by them. However, copy sent to the Commission has not been received yet.

2. On the perusal of the application submitted by the Complainant and the information supplied to the Complainant by the Respondent, it is seen that most of the information has been supplied to the Complainant on 21.01.2009. The information relating to Para V( iv and v ) is incomplete and the information relating to Para VI i.e. copies of form of Backward/OBC Classes candidates filled before Counseling, has not been supplied. It is accordingly directed that this information be supplied to the Complainant.

3. The Complainant states that actually he wants photo copies of the application forms filled by Backward/OBC Classes candidates for the purpose of taking admission in the BSc Nursing . The Complainant pleads that since the information has been supplied after a period of one month, the Respondent should not have charged Rs. 500/- as cost of documents

4. On the perusal of the file it is seen that Shri C.L.Premy, Complainant filed an application for information relating to admission in BSc Nursing course in the colleges affiliated to Baba Farid University of Medical Health Sciences, Faridkot. In the application submitted by Shri C. L. Premy, Complainant, there is no mention of any name Shri darshan Lal and Ms. Harpreet Kaur. The Complainant states that Shri Darshan Lal has deposited Rs. 500/-(Five hundred only) as cost fee has been deposited by him. It is directed that the information be supplied to Shri C.L. Premi free of cost as it has not been supplied within a period of 30 days.

5. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent assures the Commission
that the requisite information relating to Backward/OBC classes candidates, is available on record, will be supplied to the Complainant within a period of 15 days i.e. by 20.5.2009 otherwise an affidavit will be submitted that original applications forms filled in by the candidates for taking admission in BSc Nursing are not available in the record and have been transferred to the colleges, where the candidates have taken admission. He pleads that the case may be closed.

6. It is directed that the information relating to Para V(iv and v)and Para VI be supplied to the Complainant as per the arguments held in the court today, within a period of 15 days i.e. by 20.5.2009. It is also directed that an amount of Rs. 500/-(Five hundred only) be refunded to Shri Darshan Lal, who is not a complainant in the instant case.

7. Accordingly, the case is disposed of . However, the Complainant can approach the Commission if the information/affidavit is not supplied to him by the Respondent by 20.5.2009.

8. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Surinder Singh
Dated: 29. 04. 2009 State Information Commissioner

RAVI GOYAL and OTHERS Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.5307 of 2009

Date of Decision: April 24, 2009

Ravi Goyal and Others .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and Another .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anil Sharma, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
The prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to attend classes of Phase-II of the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS Course) subject to their passing of the reappear paper of the Ist Professional Examination which would be held
in May/June 2009 to enable the petitioners to join the main batch.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that the issue has been addressed by the Full Bench of this Court and has been decided against the petitioners.

In view of judgment dated 30.1.2009 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, placed on record as Annexure R-1, in Civil Writ Petition No.17820 of 2008 titled ‘Prabhoor Singh Hayer and Others vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and Others’, the petition is dismissed.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

SATNAM SINGH Vs GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AMRITSAR AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 2860 of 2008

DATE OF DECISION : 22.04.2009

Satnam Singh .... PETITIONER
Versus
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. P.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file reply to the charge sheet, which has been issued to him during the pendency of this petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

VANDANA SHARMA Vs GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.2062 of 2008

DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 02, 2009

Vandana Sharma .....PETITIONER
Versus
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others ....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr.Rajeev K.Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for
Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G.,Punjab, for respondent No.3.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Punjab School Tribunal for the grouse raised in this petition. In view of the said fact, counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Punjab School Tribunal.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE

UPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.1406 of 2009

Date of decision:25.03.2009

Upinder Singh and others ...Petitioners
versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ...Respondents and others

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

Present:
Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate with Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr. B.B.S.Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.4
Ms. Manpreet S.Longia, Advocate for respondent No.6

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

K.KANNAN, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner's counsel restricts his arguments and seeks for adjudication only with regard to the prayer for conducting a supplementary examination forthwith so that they become eligible to compete for entry into post graduate courses (MD/MS) after the completion of one year of apprenticeship that would follow the completion of MBBS course.

2. The admitted case is that the persons who have approached this Court have failed in one or more subjects in the final MBBS course, in the examination held in November-December 2008.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers me to Regulation No.7(7) of the Medical Council of India Regulations which reads as under :-

Supplementary examination may be conducted within six months so that the students who pass can join the main batch and the failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year.

3. The construction which the counsel for the petitioners places on the regulation is that the supplementary examination shall be held expeditiously so that the failed candidates will better the chances by qualifying for appearing in post graduate courses in 2010 and for that to
happen, they should have one year of apprenticeship after the completion
of MBBS course. This will happen only if the supplementary examination is held and results are published before April 2009. The University has filed a short written statement and it relies on the very same provision referred to above to make a construction that six months period is an outer limit to provide for sufficient time to conduct the examinations which ought to go through several formalities. According to him, it is not feasible for the University to conduct the examination immediately and the earliest they do is only to fix the supplementary examination to take place by May-June 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a recent precedent of 2008 when on a similar occasion, the University conducted a supplementary examination immediately after the results were published when the failed candidates could again take the supplementary exam and could avail the facility to be qualified for joining the post graduate courses.

5. The conduct of supplementary examination involves a process. It is not one single and of conducting an examination but to conduct it, it will have to take within its fold preparation of question papers by entrusting the job to the competent persons, working out the time schedule for the exams which shall not clash with other examinations, provision for invigilation, correction of papers and making arrangements for viva voce by persons who can competently handle an oral test. It shall normally be left to the wisdom to the University to prescribe the date to regulate their own functions. Unless
the conduct is patently arbitrary and capricious, there is hardly a scope for the Court to dictate to the University a time schedule in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. It will be a risky exercise for the Court to breathe down the affairs of the University just in order to please some of
the students. While the grievance of the petitioners who are aspirants to
higher courses could not be turned as outlandish, it will have to still stand within the realms of control of the University. The University hardly requires any sagacious counsel from Courts when it could normally be believed that University has the best of guidance of its own academician and persons who have the students' interests in their hearts and soul.

6. Under the circumstances, it is difficult, nay improper, to intervene on behalf of the students and mandate the University to prescribe the time schedule in the manner just sought for the petitioners.

7. Revision petition is dismissed.

(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE

UPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.1406 of 2009

Date of decision:25.03.2009

Upinder Singh and others ...Petitioners
versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ...Respondents and others

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

Present:
Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate with Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr. B.B.S.Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.4
Ms. Manpreet S.Longia, Advocate for respondent No.6

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

K.KANNAN, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner's counsel restricts his arguments and seeks for adjudication only with regard to the prayer for conducting a supplementary examination forthwith so that they become eligible to compete for entry into post graduate courses (MD/MS) after the completion of one year of apprenticeship that would follow the completion of MBBS course.

2. The admitted case is that the persons who have approached this Court have failed in one or more subjects in the final MBBS course, in the examination held in November-December 2008.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers me to Regulation No.7(7) of the Medical Council of India Regulations which reads as under :-

Supplementary examination may be conducted within six months so that the students who pass can join the main batch and the failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year.

3. The construction which the counsel for the petitioners places on the regulation is that the supplementary examination shall be held expeditiously so that the failed candidates will better the chances by qualifying for appearing in post graduate courses in 2010 and for that to
happen, they should have one year of apprenticeship after the completion
of MBBS course. This will happen only if the supplementary examination is held and results are published before April 2009. The University has filed a short written statement and it relies on the very same provision referred to above to make a construction that six months period is an outer limit to provide for sufficient time to conduct the examinations which ought to go through several formalities. According to him, it is not feasible for the University to conduct the examination immediately and the earliest they do is only to fix the supplementary examination to take place by May-June 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a recent precedent of 2008 when on a similar occasion, the University conducted a supplementary examination immediately after the results were published when the failed candidates could again take the supplementary exam and could avail the facility to be qualified for joining the post graduate courses.

5. The conduct of supplementary examination involves a process. It is not one single and of conducting an examination but to conduct it, it will have to take within its fold preparation of question papers by entrusting the job to the competent persons, working out the time schedule for the exams which shall not clash with other examinations, provision for invigilation, correction of papers and making arrangements for viva voce by persons who can competently handle an oral test. It shall normally be left to the wisdom to the University to prescribe the date to regulate their own functions. Unless
the conduct is patently arbitrary and capricious, there is hardly a scope for the Court to dictate to the University a time schedule in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. It will be a risky exercise for the Court to breathe down the affairs of the University just in order to please some of
the students. While the grievance of the petitioners who are aspirants to
higher courses could not be turned as outlandish, it will have to still stand within the realms of control of the University. The University hardly requires any sagacious counsel from Courts when it could normally be believed that University has the best of guidance of its own academician and persons who have the students' interests in their hearts and soul.

6. Under the circumstances, it is difficult, nay improper, to intervene on behalf of the students and mandate the University to prescribe the time schedule in the manner just sought for the petitioners.

7. Revision petition is dismissed.

(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE

Shri CL Premy Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri C.L.Premy, Advocate,
# 244, Sector: 71,
S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali). Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University,
Faridkot. Respondent

CC No.75/2009

Present:
Shri C. L. Premi, Advocate, Complainant, in person.
Shri Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate , on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The Respondent makes a written submission, which is taken on record and one copy is handed over to the Complainant in the court today.
2. It is directed that the Complainant will send his observations/comments, if any, on the written submission, handed over to him today, to the PIO within a period of 15 days, with a copy to the Commission and the PIO will send his response within a further period of 15 days.
3. The case is fixed for further hearing on 22.4.2009 at 12.30 P.M. in the Chamber(SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector: 17-C, Chandigarh).
4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Surinder Singh
Dated: 24. 03. 2009 State Information Commissioner

Shri C Premy Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri C.L.Premy, Advocate,
# 244, Sector: 71,
S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali). Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University,
Faridkot. Respondent

CC No.75/2009

Present:
None is present on behalf of the Complainant.
Shri Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of Advocate Shri Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The Complainant vide his letter dated 2nd March, 2009 brought to the notice of the Commission that he has not received the notice of the hearing. In the complaint made by the Complainant in AC -306/2008, CC-75/2009 and CC-72/2009, as he has shifted his residence from House No.1616, Sector:38-B, Chandigarh to House N o.244, Sector: 71, S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali).

2. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent-PIO states that the case may be adjourned and he will submit his written reply on the next date of hearing. He further pleads that he may be given a period of 15 (Fifteen) days
CC No.75/2009

to file reply on behalf of the Respondent-PIO.

3. Accordingly, on the request of the learned Counsel, the case is fixed for filing reply and for further hearing on 24.3.2009.

4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Surinder Singh
Dated: 03.03.2009 State Information Commissioner

Anita Rani versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Smt. Anita Rani,
W/o Sh. Deepak Saini,
BXX-1729, St. No. 1,
New Prem Nagar,
Near Rose Garden, Ludhiana

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and
Animal Science University, Ludhiana

……………………………..Respondent

CC No.2375 of 2008

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. P.D. Mahajan Assistant Registrar c-m-APIO and Sh. Pawan Sood, Junior Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. On the last hearing, Complainant was advised to point out the deficiencies, if any, in the information supplied. Complainant is absent. She was absent on the last hearing also. She has not pointed out any deficiencies. It is presumed that she is satisfied with the information supplied to her. 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: 20th January, 2009

PARDEEP KHOKHAR Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTH Civil Writ Petition 1192 of 2008



RAMNINDER SINGH NAGRA Vs SH JAGJIT PURI IAS SECRETARY TO GOVT OF PUNJAB CWP 12845 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Date of Decision: 12-09-2008

Ramninder Singh Nagra ......Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Jagjit Puri, IAS, Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and others .....Respondents

Coram:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:
Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Jattana, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 and 5.
Shri T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner, a minor son of a Central Government employee posted in Chandigarh in the office of Accountant General, Punjab, has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to seek admission against the seats meant for the Punjab residents in the MBBS Course on the basis of PMET, 2008, conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences.

The petitioner has passed 10+2 examination from Chandigarh. He appeared in PMET, 2008 and obtained 599 marks out of 800 marks and his rank was 144. The total number of seats were 297.

However, the petitioner was not admitted, when he appeared for counseling on 15.7.2008 for the reason that the residence certificate is not in order as per Clause 4(d)(ii) of the Prospectus. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is working in the office of Accountant General (Audit) Punjab having joined the said department on
8.6.1982. He has been issued residence certificate as per Clause 4(viii) of the Prospectus.

Therefore, as a resident of Punjab, he is entitled to be considered for admission against the seats meant for the Punjab residents. The petitioner has produced another certificate to the effect that his father worked for 2 years 3 months in number of districts of Punjab, in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Government and, therefore, the petitioner is eligible for admission against the seats meant for the Punjab residents.

On behalf of the University, the stand is that as per the eligibility criteria, a candidate should have passed 10+1; 10+2 or its equivalent examination, as a regular candidate from a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab, except for the exemptions, wherever applicable. Sub clause (viii) is to the effect that the candidate should be bona-fide resident of Punjab. Relevant Clauses of the Prospectus read as under:-

4. Eligibility Criteria PMET-2008

A. For PMET 2008 (COMMON CRITERIA FOR ALL COURSES)

(i) The candidate should have passed 10+1 and 10+2 or its equivalent examination and the
qualifying examination as a regular candidate from a recognized institution/university. The
10+2 or equivalent examination will be as per details given below.

(a) to (f) x
(ii) to (v) x

(vi) Should have passed his/her 10+1 and 10+2 examination or other qualifying examination in place or 10+2, as listed in 4(A)(i)(a) to (f) above, as regular candidate from a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab only except for the exemptions wherever applicable.

The candidate would be required to submit a certificate to this effect from the Principal/Head of the institute last attended in the prescribed proforma.

(vii) x

(viii) The candidate should be bona-fide resident of Punjab. The residence status of the Punjab State will be taken in terms of Punjab Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PP II Branch), letter No. 1/3/95-3 PPII/ 9619, dated 6th June, 1996, ID No. 1/2/96- 3PP-2/8976, dated 7th July, 1998 and ID No. letter No. 1/3/95-3PP-II/81, dated 1st January, 1999 and further instructions issued by the Department, if any, and the same shall be adhered in letter and spirits in PMET.

B. x
C. x

D. Exemptions under para 4 A (i)(a) to (f) for 4 A (vi) and 4(C) (ii).

(i) Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those regular Punjab Government employees, members of All India Services borne on Punjab Cadre, serving Judges and the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, employees of Boards/Corporations/statutory bodies established by an Act of the State of Punjab, who have been holding posts outside Punjab on or before 1st January of the year of entrance test and their children/wards/ dependents were compelled to do 10+1 and/or 10+2
outside Punjab.

(ii) Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those regular Central Government employees, employees of Boards/Corporations / statutory bodies of the Central Government who have remained posted inside Punjab for at least 2 years out
of the three years preceding the year of PMET 2008 but were posted outside Punjab for some time during these three years due to which their children/wards / dependents were compelled to do 10+1 and/or 10+2 or equivalent qualifying examination outside Punjab.

However, those who remained posted in Punjab continuously for these three years shall not be entitled to be exempted as they are equally placed with other Punjab Government employees posted in Punjab.

(iii) x

In reply, on behalf of the State Government, it was pointed out that as per the certificate produced by the father of the petitioner, he is an employee of Government of India and is working as Assistant Audit Officer. There was no mention about the place of service in Punjab. He was only deputed on tour in the State of Punjab and claimed TA/DA from his parent department i.e. the Accountant General, Punjab and UT, Chandigarh, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered for admission against the Punjab quota seats.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the petitioner is found to be a bona-fide resident of Punjab in terms of the Instructions of the Punjab Government, as per Clause 4(A) (viii) of the Prospectus, then the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission as a resident of Punjab. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to exemption as his case is at par with the Central Government employees, who remained posted in Punjab, as the father of the petitioner posted in Chandigarh, was connected with the affairs of Punjab alone.

The question which requires examination is whether the petitioner having been granted bona-fide resident status of Punjab, is entitled to be considered for admission against the seat meant for Punjab residents, though he has not passed 10+1 and 10+2 or equivalent
examinations from an institute located in the State of Punjab. As per circular dated 6.6.1996 appended with the Prospectus, an employee of the Government of India, posted in Chandigarh or in Punjab in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Government for a period of three years is entitled to residence certificate. But even if a candidate is resident of Punjab, still he has to pass the qualifying examination from an institution situated in Punjab, so as to avail the benefit of Punjab quota seats.

As a matter of fact, the condition of passing qualifying examination from an institution situated in the State, came up for consideration before this Court in Meenal Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) PLR 209. While considering the similar condition introduced in
the State of Haryana, it was found that the object of amendment was to stop the persons from getting admission by filing fake or bogus domicile certificate. Therefore, such eligibility criteria cannot be said to be discriminatory or having no rational to the object sought to be achieved.

Thus, the condition of residence and passing the qualifying examination from an institution located in the State of Punjab, is required to be fulfilled by the petitioner before he can be considered for admission in Punjab. Both the conditions i.e. condition Nos. 4(vi) and (viii) of eligibility conditions are required to be fulfilled by the petitioner.

The second question is whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption, as has been granted to the children/wards/dependents of those regular Central Government employees, who have remained posted inside Punjab.

The exemption contained in Clause 4(D)(ii) is specific that a Central Government employee, if remained posted inside Punjab during the last 3 years is entitled to exemption.

The father of the petitioner was not posted in Punjab. The stand of the petitioner is that his father remained on tour in Punjab during the last 3 years and thus, he is entitled to be considered for admission against the Punjab seats. The petitioner has not produced the details of the duration of the tours of his father to Punjab. Though the petitioner has filed the replication, yet the stand of the respondent-State that the petitioners father has availed
TA/DA for his tours to Punjab, has not been controverted. Meaning thereby that the place of posting of the petitioners father was Chandigarh and he has availed the traveling allowance for going out of Chandigarh. It is not for this Court to introduce another clause of
exemption or re-write the exemptions in any particular manner.

In Nishant Puri v. State of H.P. and others, (1999)1 SCC 126, the Honble Supreme Court considered the pari-materia provisions in respect of the admissions in the State of Himachal Pradesh and held that the purpose of clause relating to the eligibility appears to be that the bona-fide Himachali students should be given preference over other. In achieving the said object, care has been taken to protect those students whose parents were obliged to move out of Himachal Pradesh on account of exigencies of service, by reason of which the children also moved out of the State. In the aforesaid case, the mother of the student, who was an employee of the State Government went on deputation on her own request on health ground to work as an employee of the Central Government. She was allowed to continue on deputation for nearly 10 years, though she was maintaining a lien with the State Government. It was held that the interpretation to treat the mother of the petitioner as a Central Government employee, would go against the spirit of eligibility clause provided in the Prospectus.

Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we do not find that the petitioner can be considered to be eligible candidate as a resident of Punjab, for admission in the MBBS Course on the basis of PMET, 2008.

Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

DR GURJIT SINGH DHALIWAL Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT CWP 8565 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: August 12 2008

Dr. Gurjit Singh Dhaliwal --- Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot and others
---- Respondents

CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:
Mr. RS Ahluwalia Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. TS Dhindsa Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mr. Balwinder Singh Sr. DAG Punjab.

Ashutosh Mohunta J.
Petitioner prays for issuance of directions to the Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab/respondent No. 3 as well as Principal Secretary Department of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh/respondent No. 4 to issue No Objection certificate to him for joining Post Graduate Course in MD Anesthesia. He also prays that respondent No.2 be directed to permit him to join the aforementioned course.

Mr. Dhindsa counsel for respondent No.1 states that admission has been granted to the petitioner and as such it is for respondents No. 3 and 4 to issue No Objection certificate.

Counsel for the State submits that provisionally No Objection certificate has been issued to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to comply with the eligibility conditions.

After hearing counsel for the parties we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 to verify the provisional No objection Certificate issued to the petitioner earlier within a period of two weeks from today. We further direct
the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with his classes.

[Ashutosh Mohunta]
Judge

[Rajan Gupta]
Judge

DR VINAY KUMAR KHULLAR Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT CWP 8564 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: August 12 2008

Dr.Vinay Kumar Khullar --- Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot and others
---- Respondents

CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:
Mr. RS Ahluwalia Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. TS Dhindsa Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mr. Balwinder Singh Sr. DAG Punjab.

Ashutosh Mohunta J.
Petitioner prays for issuance of directions to the Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab/respondent No. 3 as well as Principal Secretary Department of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh/respondent No. 4 to issue No Objection certificate to him for joining Post Graduate Course in MD Pharmacology. He also prays that respondent No.2 be directed to permit him to join the aforementioned course.

Mr. Dhindsa counsel for respondent No.1 states that admission has been granted to the petitioner and as such it is for respondents No. 3 and 4 to issue No Objection certificate.

Counsel for the State submits that provisionally No Objection certificate has been issued to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to comply with the eligibility conditions.

After hearing counsel for the parties we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 to verify the provisional No objection Certificate issued to the petitioner
earlier within a period of two weeks from today. We further direct
the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with his classes.

[Ashutosh Mohunta]
Judge

[Rajan Gupta]
Judge

DR KAMAL KISHORE Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES FARIDKOT CWP 9817 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: August 12 2008

Dr. Kamal Kishore --- Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot and others
---- Respondents

CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. TS Dhindsa Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mr. Balwinder Singh Sr. DAG Punjab.

Ashutosh Mohunta J.
Petitioner prays for issuance of directions to the Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab/respondent No. 3 as well as Principal Secretary Department of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh/respondent No. 4 to issue No Objection certificate to him for joining Post Graduate Course in MD Anesthesia. He also prays that respondent No.2 be directed to permit him to join the aforementioned course.

Mr. Dhindsa counsel for respondent No.1 states that admission has been granted to the petitioner and as such it is for respondents No. 3 and 4 to issue No Objection certificate.

Counsel for the State submits that provisionally No Objection certificate has been issued to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to comply with the eligibility conditions.

After hearing counsel for the parties we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 to verify the provisional No objection Certificate issued to the petitioner
earlier within a period of two weeks from today. We further direct
the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with his classes.

[Ashutosh Mohunta]
Judge

[Rajan Gupta]
Judge

GURDIAL SINGH Vs BABA FARID UNIV OF HEALTH AND ORS CWP 8563 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: May 22 2008

DR. GURDAIL SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH ...RESPONDENTS SCIENCES FARIDKOT AND OTHERS

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

PRESENT:
MR. R.S. AHLUWALIA ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. T.S. DHINDSA ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
MR.YATINDER SHARMA DAG PUNJAB RESPONDENT NOS.3 and 4.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA J.(ORAL)
The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to give him the No Objection Certificate as without that he would be unable to join the Post Graduate Course of M.S. Opthalmalogy in Government Medical College Amritsar.

Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 states that No Objection Certificate has been granted to the petitioner on 20.5.2008 and hence this writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

In view of the fact that No Objection Certificate has been given to the petitioner therefore the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

CHARANJEEV ATWAL Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 7264 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: May 5, 2008

CHARANJEET ATWAL ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
BABA FARID UNIVERSITY and OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

PRESENT:
MR. M.K. DOGRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. T.S. DHINDSA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The petitioner has prayed for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Medical Colleges in the category of Ward of NRI. Her application has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the petitioner is admittedly 39 years of age and is married to a person who is permanently a citizen of India and has children. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the petitioner is 39 years of age and is married to a citizen of India does not debar the petitioner from claiming admission in the Medical Colleges under the Ward of NRI Quota, specially when her parents are Non Resident Indians and are willing to sponsor her candidature.

Notice was issued. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate counsel for the University has referred to the definition of Ward and according to learned counsel as the case of the petitioner is not covered by the definition of the word Ward, hence she is not entitled to any admission. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for admission as she is not dependent or under the protection and control of her parents. The word Ward has been defined in the Law of Laxicon as under:-

A person, who by reason of minority; lunacy or other incapacity is under the protection or control of a guardian.

A perusal of the aforementioned definition clearly shows that
only a person who by reason of minority, lunacy or any incapacity would be entitled to claim protection or control of her guardian. In the present case, as the petitioner is married to an Indian Citizen and is not under the guardianship of her parents, therefore, she cannot get admission under Ward of NRI category. The petitioner does not satisfy the criteria of dependents. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

Rahul Arora …Petitioner Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot and Others Civil Writ Petition 2463 of 2008

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

Civil Misc. Application No. 8302 of 2008 In

Date of Decision: 30.4.2008

Rahul Arora …Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and Others
…Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral)
This is an application for modification of the order dated 7.4.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time frame be given to the Vice Chancellor to decide application of petitioner.

Learned counsel further states that petitioner has already filed the additional submissions on 18.4.2008 before the Vice Chancellor.

In view of the above, we modify our order dated 7.4.2008 with a direction that representation (Annexure P5) filed by the petitioners father along with the additional submissions be decided by the Vice Chancellor within a period of two months from today.

Civil Misc. Application stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Mohunta)
Judge

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge

SITA RANI Vs PB MANDI BOARD ETC CWP 13198 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: April 29, 2008

KARTAR SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
...RESPONDENTS SCIENCES, FARIDKOT (PUNJAB) THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

PRESENT:
MR. R.K. MALIK, SR.ADVOCATE WITH
MR. NIGAM KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. SANDEEP THAKAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the Vice Chancellor has cleared the probation period of the petitioner vide orders dated 26.9.2007.

In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

NEERUPAMA SHARMA Vs B F U OF HEALTH SCIENCE AND ORS Civil Writ Petition 6869 of 2008



Hectic lobbying on for post of Baba Farid University VC

CHANDIGARH: Hectic lobbying has started for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences as the term of the present Vice-Chancellor Dr Ravinder Singh is due to expire in the next few months.

Dr Ravinder Singh was handpicked by former Punjab Chief Minister Capt Amarinder Singh for this coveted post. He was appointed vice-chancellor after he had demitted office as Director of Research
and Medical Education.

According to well informed sources in the Medical EducationDepartment, Dr Ravinder Singh has started hectic lobbying for an extension and he has sought the help of some senior Akali Dal leaders
of the State. Hailing from Patiala, where he worked as Principal of the Government Medical College, Dr Ravinder Singh managed to hold key assignments during the Congress rule.

He held three assignments at one time, that of DRME, Punjab, Principal of the Government Medical College at Patiala , and head of the surgery department at the Government Medical College and Government Rajindra Hospital at Patiala.

After his retirement from the post of DRME his wife, Dr Kiranjit Kaur became the principal of the Government Medical College at Patiala. She also holds the distinction of having held three simultaneous
assignments at one time, that of DRME, principal of the Government Medical College at Patiala, and head of the department of biochemistry in the Government Medical College at Patiala.

Dr Ravinder Singh has all along courted controversies. He was at the forefront when the alumni association of the Government Medical College held its annual conference with Capt Amarinder Singh as the chief guest. He became the life president of the association, a post that he continues to hold even today.

However, the ambitious project of the alumni association to build a trauma centre at the Government Medical College and Government Rajindra Hospital at Patiala remains a
distant dream.

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences was established under an Act passed by the Legislature of the State of Punjab in July, 1998.

RAHUL ARORA Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES and ORS C W P 2463 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:07.04.2008

Rahul Arora
.....Petitioner
versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences
Faridkot and others
.....Respondents.

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

Present:
Mr.Puneet Jindal Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Nirmaljit Kaur Senior Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Brar Advocate.
***
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA J.(Oral)
The relief claimed in this petition as also the relief claimed by the father of the petitioner in the representation (Annexure P-5) filed before the Vice Chancellor is with regard to some allegations made in this writ petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Vice Chancellor Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot-respondent No.1 to take a decision on the representation filed by the father of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law expeditiously. In case the petitioner wants to place some other material in the representation (Annexure P-5) to substantiate his claim the same be filed before the Vice Chancellor preferably within a period of two months from today.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

Sh Bachan Singh Mundra versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh.Bachan Singh Mundra,
# 1014, phase 4,
SAS Nagar, Mohali. ......Complainant
Vs.

PIO/. Registrar, Baba Farid
University of Health Sciences,Faridkot. .....Respondent.

CC No-61-of 2007:

Present:
Shri Bachan Singh Mundra, complainant in person.
Shri Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Advocate for the PIO.
Order:

Shri Bachan Singh Mundra’s request under the RTI Act made to the PIO, Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot., on 22.07.06 has now been completely complied with and full information with a covering letter duly paged and attested has been supplied to him (along with many papers which he had not asked for . It is another matter that this information has been supplied after the Commission had to pass detailed orders and directions in its hearing held on 6.6.07, 18.7.08 as well as 26.9.07. It is observed that the PIO has finally supplied the documents only after he painted himself into a corner and was made to move in the matter. The Commission expresses his satisfaction that the said documents earlier stated to be “not available” have been unearthed through special efforts and supplied to the applicant.

2. The applicant has now sent another letter with copy to the PIO. In this he has expressed doubt about the version of Sh. P.L.Garg about how the letter dated 19.6.06 was misplaced/stolen but he had a photocopy which has now been supplied. He also took objection to the fact that the dispatch register which had been ordered to be produced had not been produced in today’s hearing. While acknowledging the tenacity of Sh. Bachan Singh Mundra who has managed to extract the document from the reluctant PIO, the Commission considers that it is in the fitness of the things to now close the matter. The
CC No-61-of 2007:
-2
applicant urges that the PIO deserves full penalty as provided under the Act. However, after considering the reply dated 31.10.07 of the PIO, present in the Court today, I feel we need not flog the dead horse any more and may let matters rest here. With this, the case is hereby disposed of.


Sd/-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) State Information Commissioner
31.10. 2007.

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Ms.Baljot Kaur,
D/o Dr.Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. …..……......Appellant.

Vs.

Public Information Officer
o/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot ………….Respondent

AC No.19 of 2007
ORDER

Present :
Dr. Preet Pal Singh on behalf of the Appellant. None is present on behalf of the Respondent.

On the last date of hearing that is 03.09.2007, we had directed that our earlier order of 13.08.2007 requiring the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences to supply the information should be implemented. We also directed that the Respondent should show cause why he be not penalized and why the Complainant be not compensated.

2. After the last date of hearing, intimation has been received that while taking up Civil Writ Petition No. 13766 of 2007, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has in their order of 6th September, 2007 stayed our order dated 13.08.2007.

3. In these circumstances, this matter is adjourned sine die. As and when the CWP No. 13766 of 2007 is decided by the Hon’ble High Court, the party would be at liberty to apply for the listing of this case for hearing. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

(Rajan Kashyap)
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh
Dated: 10.10.2007
Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner


(Mrs. Ravi Singh ) State Information Commissioner

ANURADHA SHARMA Versus CHANDIGARH ADMN AND ORS CWP 11446 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 7.9.2007

Anuradha Sharma -----Petitioner
Vs.
Chandigarh Administration and others -----Respondents

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

Present:
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and
2. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate
with
Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

JUDGMENT:
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.11446 of 2007 filed by Anuradha Sharma and Civil Writ Petition No.11470 of 2007 filed by Nitin Jindal.

In both the petitions, challenge is to admission given under the NRI quota to MBBS Course.

In CWP No.11446 of 2007, case of the petitioner is that as per prospectus Annexure P.1, it was stipulated that no alteration will be allowed in the application form after its submission; application received late or incomplete will be rejected; under the NRI category, first preference will be given to NRI candidates who had ancestral background of Chandigarh and admission will be on the basis of merit determined as per marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB). For NRI category, in the form prescribed, inter-alia, following documents were required:-

2. Photocopy of certificate of having passed pre-medical/10+2+3 showing equivalent examination from any foreign university/board showing detailed mark/explanation sheets of grades in percentage.

The petitioner applied with the relevant certificates
mentioning that average of marks obtained by her was 90.33%.

Respondent No.4 Rosanna Kaur Jhawar in her application form Annexure R.4/3 mentioned as under:-

%age of Marks Grade point/Average score
i) Physics 90-100% A

ii)Chemistry 90-100% A

iii)Biology 90-100% A

iv)English 90-100% A

She annexed certificate from the school Annexure R-4/7 to the effect that valuation of marks of Grade 'A' was equal to 90%- 100%.

On 10.7.2007, vide Anneuxre P.3, a notice of deficiency was put up and against the name of respondent No.4, it was, interalia, mentioned that percentage of marks had not been given.

Again on 24.7.2007, a second notice of deficiency was put up to the effect that if percentage of the score was not given, no percentage score could be allotted. However, respondent No.4 was given admission on 27.7.2007, vide Annexure P.5 by treating her to have obtained 94% marks. In proceedings, Annexure P.8, it was mentioned that she gave a certificate that Grade 'A' was equal to
94-96%.

Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since in the original application, respondent No.4 had described her grade as 'A' equal to 90-100%, subsequent certificate could not be considered for claiming higher percentage. Subsequent certificate
Annexure R4/15 issued by the Sunny Hills High School gives the following percentage range of grades:-

A+ = 97% -100%
A = 94% - 96%
A - = 90% -93%.

Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Annexure P.9
dated 23.8.2007 from the same school wherein grade 'A' is described as equal to 90% to 100%. It has been further mentioned therein that grading policies vary from teacher to teacher. Most teachers use 10% scale i.e. 90% to 100%.

Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
Anuradha Sharma is that respondent No.4 could not be given admission in the category of ancestral background of Chandigarh, for which the requirement laid down was owning of property in the last five years by grandparents/parents of the
candidate. Further requirement was that the candidate should not have obtained the benefit of residence elsewhere. Reference has been made to Annexure P.4. It was submitted that the certificate Anneuxre R4/6 to the effect that grandfather of respondent No.4 owned property for the last five years was wrong, as admittedly grandfather of respondent No.4 died in the year 1992 as per certificate Annexure P.10. It was also stated that respondent No.4 had applied in Punjab as per Annexure P.6 issued by the Baba Farid University.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Full
Bench judgement of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997(3) SCT 526, to the effect that last date for filing/completing application has to be strictly followed. Further reliance has been placed on DB
judgement of this Court in Manisha Bansal v. Baba Farid University of Health sciences, Faridkot and others, CWP No.11030 of 2003, decided on 24.5.2004, to submit that applying for admission amounts to taking advantage of residence requirement. It was submitted that the said judgement was further explained in Bharat Gupta v. State of Haryana (PandH) (DB), 2006(2) SCT 71 but the judgement in Manisha Bansal (supra) being clear on the point, respondent No.4
should be treated to have taken benefit elsewhere on account of which she could not claim ancestral background of Chandigarh in terms of requirement of Annexure P.4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 opposed the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that as per the prospectus, NRI candidates were not required to give detailed marks but were free to give explanation sheets of
grades in percentage and once the said explanation sheet had been duly filed by respondent No.4, requirement in deficiency notice was illegal. Percentage of 90-100% should have been treated equal to 95% as was done in the previous year.

Reference has been made to averment in affidavit dated 27.8.2007, Para 4. It was submitted that though, Grade 'A' had a range of 90%-100%, there was further gradation as per certificate dated 25.7.2007, Annexure R4/15 reproduced above.

Accordingly, the Admitting Authority was justified, on that basis, in accepting the percentage of respondent No.4 as 94% in the proceedings for admission, Annexure P.8. It was further submitted that respondent No.4 applied in Baba Farid University but was not given admission and in such a situation, judgement of this Court in Bharat Gupta (supra) was applicable. It was also explained that though, grandfather of respondent No.4 died in the year 1992, requirement of Annexure P.4 was met. The requirement of “last atleast five years” was only in respect of property being in the name of the grandfather and alternatively, since the requirement of residence was for a period of five years at any time since the
origin of Chandigarh, requirement of owning of property will also be read as being applicable at any time since the origin of Chandigarh. It was also submitted that after the death of the grandfather, though uncle of the candidate had applied for entering of his name on the basis of family settlement, father of the candidate was also one of the heirs whose name could be entered in record.

We find that as per application form of respondent
No.4, Grade 'A' was mentioned as range of 90- 100%, while as per subsequent certificate dated 25.7.2007, Grade 'A' was bifurcated into three categories 'A -', 'A' and 'A+' with different range of percentage. The petitioner has referred to letter dated 28.8.2007, Annexure R4/17 and Annexure P.9 to the effect that grading policy varied from teacher to teacher. It was submitted that since the policy varied from teacher to teacher, it could not be taken that for subjects of Physics, chemistry and Biology, the said policy had been followed. The certificate Annexure R4/15 dated 25.7.2007 was general and on that basis, percentage of marks could not have been taken to be 94%. The Admitting Committee should consider the matter afresh.

Learned counsel for the official respondents also
submitted that the requirement of owning property was for “the last five years” and not at any time since the origin of Chandigarh but in the case of respondent No.4, the authorities had gone by certificate Annexure R4/6 dated 20.7.2007 without
being conscious of fact that Gopal Krishan, father of respondent No.4 had already died and on that ground, the respondents are willing to examine the matter once again after hearing all concerned.

In view of above, we are of the view that matter
should be considered by the Admitting Authority once again after considering the view-point of concerned candidates. The validity of admissions given will abide by further orders of the Admitting Authority.

In CWP No.11470 of 2007, case of the petitioner is
that respondent No.6 had obtained 92.66% and respondent No.7 had obtained 90.83% marks, while the petitioner had obtained 92.67%. The petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that his parents did not own property in Chandigarh in
the last five years. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on Annexure P.5 to the effect that his father had 20% share during 1981-2004 but not for “last atleast five years.

Since we have directed the matter to be reconsidered in CWP No.11446 of 2007, inter-alia, for taking a conscious decision on the issue whether the requirement of owning the property was during any period of five years or during the last five years and its effect on admissions made, we leave this question also to be decided by the Admitting Committee after considering the view-point of the concerned candidates.

In view of urgency involved, the Admitting Committee will take a decision within one week of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petitions are disposed of.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge

(Ajai Lamba)
Judge

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Dr. Jaspal Singh,
# 13, Rana Mill,
Opposite Sandhu Avenue,
Chheharta, Amritsar. ….Complainant.

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Registrar,
Guru Nanak Dev University,
Amritsar. …Respondent.

CC No. 1014 of 2007

ORDER

Present:
Dr. Jaspal Singh, Complainant in person.
None is present on behalf of the Respondent.

A message has been received from the Respondent that he has not been able to attend today’s hearing on account of the misunderstanding about the venue.

2. On the last date of hearing that is 02.07.2007, we had directed that certain information that was missing from that supplied to the Complainant should be delivered by the Respondent Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar to him. Complainant states before us that some information has been delivered to him, but this only meets the demand partially. According to the Complainant, information demanded was in respect of all the 140 colleges affiliated to GNDU whereas what has been supplied to him is information in respect of 76 colleges only.

3. We direct that information in respect of the remaining 64 colleges should also be given to the Complainant.

4. The next date of hearing will be intimated to the parties later by the office of the Commission.

(Rajan Kashyap)
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh

Dated: 13.08.2007

Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner



(Mrs. Ravi Singh ) State Information Commissioner

Ms.Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Ms.Baljot Kaur,
D/o Dr.Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. …..……......Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot ………….Respondent
AC No.19 of 2006
ORDER

Arguments in this case were heard on 27.06.2007 and the judgment was reserved.

2. On 18.09.2006, the Appellant Ms. Baljot kaur made an application to the Respondent under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, seeking the following information :-
“Certified copies of specified Question paper, Correct Answer Key (code) and marked Answer Sheet of P.M.E.T. - 2006. Examination Roll No. 121170.”

3. In response to this request for information, the Respondent intimated the Appellant as under :-
“In this regard, you are hereby informed that information only which the rules permit, will be supplied to you after obtaining the same from the Panjab University, Chandigarh authorities, as they have conducted the PMET on behalf of the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot’.

4. Despite the aforementioned reply, the Appellant again requested the Respondent vide her letter dated 07.10.2006 to supply the documents as per her application dated 18.09.2006, bringing to his notice the provisions of Section 7 RTI Act, 2005, which prescribes a period of 30 days for supply of information. This request was reiterated by the Appellant on 24.10.2006. Thereafter, on 13.11.2006 the Appellant filed the first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, before the Vice Chancellor of the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, highlighting the inaction of the PIO in the matter of supply of information. This appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, on 12.12.2006 with the observation thatthere was no fault on the part of the PIO as the PMET-06 was conducted by the Panjab University, Chandigarh and the documents were in their possession and not in possession of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. This led the Appellant to file the instant second appeal before the Commission on 11.01.2007 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, which has been registered as AC 19 of 2007.

5. The appeal was taken up for hearing on 12.03.2007, on which date it was stated by the Respondent that he had no objection to the supply of information demanded. It was submitted that since the examination was conducted on behalf of the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, by the Panjab University, Chandigarh, the answer sheets and the related material was with the Panjab University. According to the Respondent, the Panjab University, Chandigarh had refused to deliver this information on the ground that the material in question was exempt from disclosure. The case, thereafter, was adjourned to 16.04.2007. On 16.04.2007, Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent and stated that the Respondent was fully prepared to procure the information from the Panjab University and deliver the same to the Appellant. The case was adjourned to 17.05.2007 (subsequently the date was postponed to 31.05.2007.

6. On 31.05.2007, Sh. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Sh. Dhindsa, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the earlier counsel namely Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate had no instructions from the University to give any commitment regarding the supply of information as demanded by the Appellant. He also placed on record written submissions dated 15.05.2007 on behalf of the Respondent. A copy of these written submissions was handed over to the counsel for the Appellant also. The counsel for the Appellant also placed on record written submissions dated 31.05.2007. The case was adjourned to 27.06.2007 for further hearing. On 27.06.2007 the arguments in this case were heard and the judgment was reserved.

7. As per the written submission filed by the Respondent, the information demanded by the Appellant, that is the question paper, correct answer key and the marked answer sheet for PMET examination, 2006, were factually held and under the control of the Panjab University as the examination in question was conducted by the Panjab University and not by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. He draws our attention to a communication dated 19.10.2006, by the Panjab University to the Appellant wherein it has been stated that the Panjab University cannot supply the information as demanded by the Appellant due to secrecy. It has also been submitted that the Appellant’s request for information had been duly forwarded to the Panjab University, Chandigarh under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, and as such the Appellant should pursue the matter with the Panjab University.

8. To the aforementioned written submission filed by the Respondent, the Appellant filed his reply on 27.06.2007. In this reply, the stand taken by the
Appellant is that the Respondent could not have filed the written statement at such a belated stage. On merits it was stated that the examination was conducted by the Panjab University as a ‘paid agent’ of Baba Farid University. According to the Appellant, the Punjab Government had authorised the Baba Farid University to conduct the PMET-2006 examination and that the Baba Farid University had hired the services of the Panjab University to conduct this examination. According to him, therefore, the Respondent is legally responsible for supplying the requisite information. It was also submitted by the Appellant that the Respondent could not rely on the provisions of Section 6(3) RTI Act, 2005. Additionally, it was submitted by the Appellant that the statement of the earlier counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent was binding on the Respondent and in view of her statement the Respondent is obliged to provide the information as demanded.

9. On merits, the plea taken by the Appellant is that PMET-2006 was a computer based examination and OMR sheets were issued to the examinees as per para 4.2 of the prospectus issued by the Baba Farid University. According to the Appellant, in view of the aforementioned facts, the requisite information including the evaluated answer sheets were not exempt from disclosure under any provision of the RTI Act. The matter, according to the Appellant, is covered by a full bench decision of the Central Information Commission rendered on 23.04.2007. The relevant portion of this decision dated 23.04.2007 in Complaint No. CCI/WB.C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394; Appeal Nos. CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 is extracted as under :
“41. In some of the cases before us, it was argued that there is no question of revealing the identity of an examiner when it is a computer based examination and OMR sheets are issued as in such cases, the assessment is done by the computer. Although the use of this technique is resorted to only where there are
large numbers of examinees appearing, the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets in such cases is unlikely to render the system unworkable and as such the evaluated answer sheets in such cases will be disclosed and made available under the Right to Information Act unless the providing of such answer sheets would involve an infringement of copyright as provided for under Section 9 of the Right to Information Act. The same analogy which is applicable in most examination will mutatis mutandis apply in case of an examination conducted with optical marking system.”

10. The Respondent has not controverted the factual position regarding the format of the examination either in his written submission or otherwise. The prospectus also makes it clear that the test in question is of objective type with multiple choice questions and the candidates are provided with a sealed Question Booklet and an OMR Response Sheet. In view of these facts, the holding in the aforementioned cases by the Central Information Commission is squarely attracted to the instant case. We are, thus, of the view that the information sought by the Appellant is not exempt from disclosure.

11. The plea of the Respondent that the information sought is available only with the Panjab University and that since the Respondent has referred the application for information to the Punjab University under Section 6(3) RTI Act, 2005, the Appellant should take up the matter with the Punjab University is also without merit. It is seen that the examination in question that is PMET-2006 was entrusted by the Punjab Government to the Baba Farid University for being conducted. The Panjab University has conducted the examination only as an agent of the Baba Farid University. The delivery of information in question, therefore, is the responsibility of the Respondent. The plea of the Respondent is, therefore, rejected.

12. In view of the foregoing, we direct the Respondent to supply the information demanded by the Appellant within a period of 15 days.

13. To come up for confirmation of compliance on 03.09.2007.

(Rajan Kashyap)
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh
Dated: 13.08.2007
Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

(Mrs. Ravi Singh ) State Information Commissioner

Sh Bachan Mundra versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Bachan Mundra ......Complainant
Vs.

PIO/ O/o Baba Farid University, Faridkot .....Respondent.

CC No-061-of 2007:

Present:
Shri Bachan Singh, Advocate, complainant in person.
Shri J.C. Jaidka, Advocate, for the University-Respondent.

Order:

Shri J.C. Jaidka, Advocate has given written arguments dated July 18, 2007 with copy to the opposite party. Counsel for the University has not filed any reply on behalf of the University in accordance with June 06, 2007, I find that a mistake has been committed in the operative part of the order. The first two lines should read as under:-
“Although I find that the reply of the University is clear and explicit, that no such letter has officially been received.” and not “Although I find that the reply of the University is clear and explicit that no such letter has officially been issued.”

2. However, Shri Bachan Singh asserts and insists that such a letter has been issued officially under signatures of Shri Piara Lal Garg, in his capacity as Registrar of the said University. It is observed that the University is not giving any clear written reply to this assertion and therefore, the Receipt and Dispatch Register of the University relating to the period of 15 days before and 15 days after the date 19-06-2006 should be produced in the Commission for inspection by the complainant and for perusal of the Commission. The written reply should be filed as directed already in para-3 of the order dated June 06, 2007 as read with clarification regarding the same issued today. Reply may also be given in writing in respect of the written arguments submitted.
Adjourned to September 12, 2007.
SD:

(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) State Information Commissioner
July 18, 2007.

Dr Karan Kumar Sharma versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Karan Kumar Sharma,
# 39-B, Circular Road,
Amritsar. _________________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer ,
O/o Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Sciences,
Faridkot. ________________ Respondent

CC No. 490 of 2007

Present:
i)Dr. Karan Kumar Sharma,complainant in person.
ii) Sh. J,S,Jaidka, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

The respondent has handed over to the complainant in the Court, copies of the documents asked for by him as mentioned in para (iii) (a) & (b) of his application for information dated 16-1-2007. Regarding the information mentioned in the complaint in para (iii) ibid, the respondent has informed the Court that there has been no proceedings in this case so far. Therefore, it is not possible to supply any information in respect of this point.

In the above circumstances, no further action is required to be taken in this case, which is disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner

Dated: 28th June, 2007

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Ms.Baljot Kaur,
d/o Dr.Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. …..……......Appellant.

Vs.
Public Information Officer
o/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot ………….Respondent

AC No.19 of 2006
ORDER

Present :
Sh. Charan Singh, Advocate on behalf of the Appellant. Sh. Tejinderjit Singh. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.


(Rajan Kashyap)
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh
Dated: 27.06.2007
Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner


(Mrs. Ravi Singh ) State Information Commissioner

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Ms. Baljot Kaur,
D/o Dr. Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. Appellant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. Respondent

AC No19/2007
ORDER

Present:
Shri Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Appellant.
Shri Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Advocate, on behalf of Respondent.

On the last date of hearing on 16.4.2007, Counsel for Respondent had requested for a period of 4 days for collection of information from the Panjab University and its delivery to the Appellant as she had not studied the terms of contract between Panjab University Chandigarh and Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. She had also confirmed that Baba Farid University was fully prepared to obtain the information from the Panjab University and supply it to the Appellant.

2. The Counsel for Respondent today brings out through a written statement, which has been taken on record, various arguments relating to the case and a copy of the same is handed over to the Counsel for the Appellant. He

AC-19/2007

also brings out that the Counsel representing the Respondent earlier had no such instructions on behalf of University to give any commitment regarding provision of information demanded by the Appellant.

3. Simultaneously, the Counsel for the Appellant submits written arguments on behalf of the Appellant which are also taken on record and copies of the same are handed over to the Counsel for the Respondent.

4.. Case is fixed for further hearing on 27.6.2007.

5. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Sd/-
Surinder Singh
State Information Commissioner


Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Lt. Gen. P.K. Grover
Dated: 31.5.2007 State Information Commissioner

MANISH SETHI AND ORS Versus STATE OF PB AND ORS



sh Bhim Chand versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

State Information Commission, Punjab,
SCO No.84 -85, Sector 17 C , Chandigarh.
Sh. Bhim Chand,
# L-10, Giani Zail Singh College of Engg. & Tech.,
Dabwali Road, Bhatinda. _________________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Medical Science,
Faridkot. ________________ Respondent

AC No. 95 of 2007

Present:
i) None on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Advocate.,on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

Sh. T.S.Dhindsa, Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has made a submission that the information required by the appellant pertains to PMT,2006 which was conducted by the Panjab University, Chandigarh. The Panjab University, after declaring the results, sent the same to Baba Farid University for taking further necessary action for making the admissions The documents required by the complainant are in the custody of the Panjab University and not the respondent. He has submitted that the answer sheet of the paper of the appellant was obtained by the PIO/Baba Farid University from the Panjab University and supplied to the appellant although he ought to have taken action as prescribed under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which states that if an application is made to a public authority requesting for information which is held by another public authority, he shall transfer the application to that other public authority. The remaining information required by the complainant is definitely covered by section 6(3). Counsel undertakes to forward the application to the PIO/ Panjab University in compliance with the provisions of the said sub section within 24 hours.

In the above circumstances, this case is disposed of and the appellant is advised to pursue his application for the remaining information with the PIO/ Panjab University, Chandigarh.


(Kulbir Singh) (P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner, State Information Commissioner
Dated: 11th May, 2007

Sh Bhim Chand versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Sh. Bhim Chand,
# L-10, Giani Zail Singh College of Engg. & Tech.,
Dabwali Road, Bhatinda. _________________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Medical Science,
Faridkot. ________________ Respondent

AC No. 95 of 2007

Present:
i) Sh. Bhim Chand, appellant in person.
ii) Sh. J.S.Jaidka,Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

The Counsel for the respondent has informed this Court that Mr. Raman Kumar Aggarwal, earlier Counsel, has withdrawn from this case and now it has been entrusted to him only yesterday and seeks time for making adequate preparation for the case.

Keeping in view the nature of the information asked for by the appellant and all other circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to grant the counsel’s request but on his insistence, this case has been adjourned to 10 AM on 11-5-2007, i.e. tomorrow, for final orders.

(Kulbir Singh) (P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

HIMANSHU AND ANR Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 4487 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 9.5.2007

Himanshu and another Petitioners
versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others
Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV

Present:
Shri Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms.Nirmaljit Kaur, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1
Shri Lalit Thakur, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
Shri Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for respondent No.4

Jasbir Singh, J.
This writ petition will dispose of CWP Nos.3919, 4024, 4129, 4321, 4487 and 6130 of 2007 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.4487 of 2007.

The petitioners are studying in 2nd Professional of B.A.M.S. Course (5 ½ years duration) with respondent No.2. On passing out necessary entrance examination, they got admission in the above-said course in the month of July, 2003. After spending 1 ½ years, they became eligible and appeared in final examination of 1st Professional in December, 2005 but they were declared fail in three subjects. Thereafter, they again appeared in the supplementary examination in the month of January, 2006.

Except in one subject, the petitioners were declared pass. As per regulations of respondent No.1, the petitioners, after their 1st Professional annual examination, though failed in three subjects, were permitted and CWP No.4487 of 2007 allowed to attend classes in 2nd Professional year. They continued with their studies and are now praying that they be allowed to appear in the annual examination for the 2nd Professional year also.

It is an admitted position that as per Regulation of respondent No.1, the petitioners can pass the subjects in which they were declared fail in 1st Professional annual examination in the month of December, 2005, in six attempts i.e. they are entitled to pass those subjects upto May, 2008. It is also admitted position that as per regulation of respondent No.1, without passing all the subjects, the petitioners are eligible to attend classes for 2nd Professional. However, as per rules, they cannot sit in the annual examination of the 2nd Professional and also for the 3rd Professional. They will become eligible to appear in the annual examination for the 2nd Professional, only when they will pass all the subjects of 1st Professional, may be in six chances, after 1st annual examination. It is also an admitted fact that even without appearing in the 2nd Professional annual examination, the petitioners are eligible to be admitted in 3rd Professional.

It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that the procedure adopted is very irrational. By the time, the petitioners will pass all subjects of 1st Professional year upto May, 2008, they will forget everything, which they have studied in the 2nd Professional, if they are allowed to appear in the said annual examination thereafter.

A similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in Bikramjit Singh and another v. Baba Farid University and others, CWP No.17180 of 2006, decided on 16.11.2006, with regard to 2nd year Professional B.A.M.S. students, who were desirous of appearing in 3rd
Professional annual examination. At the time of hearing in that case, counsel for respondent No.1 very fairly admitted that the matter is squarely covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in Assempreet Kundi and another v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.5843 of 2004, decided on 8.3.2006. Accordingly, the students of 2nd year Professional, who have yet not passed all the subjects of 1st and 2nd year Professional, were allowed to
appear in 3rd year Professional examination. (Order has been placed on record as Annexure P/5 with this writ petition.) We feel that in view of ratio of judgments in Assempreet Kundi’s case and Bikramjit Singh and another v. Baba Farid University and others (supra), the petitioners are also entitled to appear in 2nd year Professional annual examination. The petitioners have
studied the course in the 2nd year Professional. They are entitled to clear all the subjects of first Professional year upto May, 2008 and if at this stage, they are not allowed to appear in the examination in the 2nd Professional year, by the time, they will clear all the subjects, they may forget everything, which they have studied in the 2nd Professional.

Faced with the situation, counsel for respondent No.1 states that let the petitioners sit in the annual examination for 2nd Professional year, but, their result be not declared. We feel that later part of the statement made is not justified. If respondent No.1 has no objection to the petitioners’ sitting in annual examination for 2nd Professional year, then there should be no objection to the declaration of their result. That will also facilitate completion of studies and passing of the course by the petitioners.

If they are declared failed in some subjects of the 2nd Professional they can appear in the supplementary examination and try to pass those subjects. On the other hand, if their result is not declared now and the same is declared only on passing of all the subjects of 1st Professional, which they are entitled to clear upto May, 2008, then again they will have to appear in the supplementary examination for the 2nd Professional, that will be too late for them to remember anything, which they have studied in the 2nd Professional.

In view of facts mentioned above, we feel that the petitioners are entitled to appear in the annual examination for 2nd Professional of B.A.M.S. course.

Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, by granting above-said relief to the petitioners. The University is directed to declare their result, however, it is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to pass all the subjects of 1st Professional in six chances, permissible to them, i.e.
upto May, 2008, they shall not claim any benefit of their putting in appearance and declaration of their result for the 2nd/ 3rd Professional.

In CWP No.3919 of 2007, the petitioner is a student of B.Sc. Nursing course. She has also prayed that she be allowed to appear in annual examination for 2nd Professional year. Regulations are the same. In view of
facts mentioned above, this writ petition is also disposed in same terms as in CWP No.4487 of 2007.

(Jasbir Singh)
Judge

(Nirmal Yadav)
Judge

JUSTINDEEP Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH and ANR CIVIL WRIT PETITION 3390 OF 2007



Sh Bhim Chand versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Sh. Bhim Chand,
# L-10, Giani Zail Singh College of Engg. & Tech.,
Dabwali Road, Bhatinda. _________________ Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health & Medical Science,
Faridkot. ________________ Respondent

AC No. 95 of 2007

Present:
i) None on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Rupam Kumar Aggarwal,Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

The respondent states that the notice for today’s hearing was received only today and therefore seeks time to be able to be prepared for the hearing and has requested for an adjournment.

The appellant is not present.

The case is adjourned to 10 AM on 10-5-2007 for further consideration and orders.


(Kulbir Singh) (P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

Dated: 20th April, 2007

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Ms.Baljot Kaur,
D/o Dr.Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. …..……......Appellant.

Vs.

Public Information Officer
o/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot ………….Respondent

AC No.19 of 2007
ORDER
Present :
Sh.Gurcharan Singh on behalf of the Appellant.
Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

On the last date of hearing, we observed that the information in question relates to the examination conducted on behalf of the Respondent by a third party that is the Punjab University, Chandigarh. Respondent was required to obtain the requisite information from this third party and deliver the same to the Appellant. It was also observed that if the Respondent wished exemption under Section 8 RTI Act, 2005 the Commission would take an appropriate decision on any such plea.

2. We find today that the Respondent, has still not been able to obtain the information from the 3rd party but he assures that he is ready to deliver the information as soon as it is received.

3. The Appellant should not be made to suffer on account of any difference of opinion between the two Universities.

4. The counsel for the Respondent states that she has not studied the terms of the contract between the Punjab University and Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. She states, however, that the University (Respondent in the Instant case) is fully prepared to obtain the information from the third party and deliver the same to the Appellant. She prays for four days’ time for collection of the information.
Contd…P/2

5. In view of the request made by the counsel for the Respondent, we hereby grant four days’ time to the Respondent to deliver the information.

6. Adjourned to 17th May, 2007 for further proceedings.



Rajan Kashyap
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh
Dated: 16.04.2007

Surinder Singh State Information Commissioner



Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

MANEET PAL SINGH AND ANR Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 3004 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 13.03.2007.

Maneet Pal Singh and another. .... Petitioners
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others. .... Respondents

2. CWP No.3009 of 2007

Harmeet Singh and others. .... Petitioners
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others. .... Respondents

3. CWP No.3078 of 2007

Harangad Singh and another. .... Petitioners
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others. .... Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV

Present:-
Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondent.

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Vide this judgment, all the above mentioned three petitions are
being disposed of together as the facts and questions of law involved, in all these cases, are the same. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 3004 of 2007, to dictate this order.

This petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to accept the examination
forms of the petitioners so as to enable them to appear in annual
examination of the 2nd professional B.D.S course, which is going to commence in May, 2007. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners got admission in the B.D.S course in the session 2005-2006. Examination of the first professional was conducted in the month of May/June, 2006. The result was declared on 28.8.2006. Petitioners have failed in more than one subject. In view of Regulation 4.2 B of the respondent-University they were
not eligible to get admission in the 2nd professional. Subsequent thereto, they appeared in the supplementary examination held on 13.10.2006, result of which was declared on 30.10.2006. The petitioners passed the examination in the subject(s) in which they had already failed. Thereafter as per Regulations referred to above, they were given admission in the 2nd professional on 1.11.2006 and they are attending classes since then.

Counsel for the respondent-University states that as per the
Regulations and Instructions issued by the Dental Council of India, a student to be eligible to appear in the 2nd professional, is supposed to undergo 240 days of study in the course. By referring to Annexure R-1/1 Mr. Dhindsa states that for the students who passed their examination on 28.8.2006 and entered in the 2nd professional on 1.9.2006, on completion of 240 days, their examination will be conducted in the month of May/June, 2007. So far as the petitioners are concerned, by that time, in view of the fact that they have not completed 240 days of study, it is not possible to allow them to set in the examination.

They may appear in the month of October/November, 2007, when supplementary examinations will be conducted for those students who may fail in some subjects, in the examination to be held in May/June, 2007.

We feel that so far the petitioners are concerned, their prayer to appear in examination going to be conducted in the month of June/July, cannot be accepted as they have not completed 240 days of study. At the same time, the submission of learned counsel for the University that the petitioners may appear in the examination to be conducted in the month of October/November, 2007, is also not acceptable. In the 2nd professional, the petitioners were admitted on 1.11.2006, whereas the other students were admitted on 1.9.2006. At the maximum, their examination can be postponed for a period of two months only, so that they can complete 240 days of study, as is necessary, as per the instructions issued by the Dental Council of India.

In view of the facts mentioned above, we dispose of these writ
petitions with a direction to the respondent-University to conduct annual examination for the 2nd professional, for the petitioners and other similarly situated students in the month of July, 2007, or at the most in the first fortnight of August, 2007.

( Jasbir Singh )
JUDGE

( Nirmal Yadav )
JUDGE

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Ms.Baljot Kaur,
d/o Dr.Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. …..……......Appellant.

Vs.

Public Information Officer
o/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot ………….Respondent

AC No.19 of 2006
ORDER

Present :
Sh.Pritpal Singh father of the Appellant Ms.Baljot Kaur.
Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of Respondent.

The information demanded relates to the Medical Entrance Test for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S and B.H.M.S.-2006 courses in Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. The Appellant states that she had failed to qualify for admission to the courses in question. She has demanded:-
(i) specific question paper (as scanned during the process of checking the answer sheets);
(ii) correct answer key (code);
(iii) her marked answer sheet for PMET 2006 examination.

2. The Respondent states that the University has no objection to supply this information. The Respondent, however, submits that the examination was conducted on behalf of the Respondent by the Panjab University, Chandigarh. The answer sheets and related material has to be obtained from the Panjab University. He further states that on the receipt of the request of the Appellant, the Respondent had demanded the relevant information from the Panjab University, Chandigarh which had conducted the examination. Panjab University, Chandigarh has refused to deliver this information on the ground that it was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.

3. In so far as the Respondent is concerned, it has to take a decision as to whether information is to be supplied or not. If exemption under section 8 of the RTI Act is to be claimed, it has to be by the Respondent and not by the Punjab University, which is merely an agency of the Respondent for conducting the examination. In the instant case, what the Respondent Baba Farid University of Health Sciences should do is to resolve this matter with the Punjab University, Chandigarh in the light of any agreement or contract between the two Institutions. If the contract does not debar the disclosure of information, as is under consideration, then the Respondent can compel the Panjab University, Chandigarh to deliver the information. This is purely a matter between the two Universities and should be resolved at the appropriate level. In so far as the Commission is concerned, the concerned Respondent, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences must take a categorical stand as to whether it will supply the information or whether it claims any exemption from disclosure of information. Arguments can be heard after the Respondent has resolved this issue with the agency that conducted the examination.

4. To come up for further hearing on 16.04.2007.


Rajan Kashyap
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh
Dated: 12.03.2007

Surinder Singh State Information Commissioner



Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

Sh Daljit Kumar Gora versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

State Information Commission, Punjab,
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17 C , Chandigarh.

.Sh. Daljit Kumar Gora,
S/o Sh. Parkash Chand,
VPO Buraj Hari Singh,
Tehsil Raikot,
Distt. Ludhiana ………….Complainant

Vs

The Public Information Officer,
O/o.The Registrar,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot. ………….Respondent

AC No. 847 of 2006

Present:- None

ORDER

The respondent has informed the Commission that the information required by the complainant has been sent to him on 27-11-2006. The complainant is not present.

Disposed of.



(Kulbir Singh) (P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

Sh Bachan Singh Mundra versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

State Information Commission, Punjab,
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17 C , Chandigarh.

Sh Bachan Singh Mundra,
Advocate, 1014,Phase 4,
Mohali,. ………….Complainant

Vs
The Public Information Officer,
O/o .The Vice Chancellor,
Baba Farid University of Health,
Faridkot. ………….Respondent

CC No. 325 of 2006

Present:
i)None on behalf of the complainant.
ii)Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur,Advocate and Sh. S.K.Pandhi, PIO, in person.

ORDER
Heard
The respondents have today submitted as follows:-

i) An affidavit of Sh. S.K.Pandhi, PIO of the University stating that the orders of this Court dated 16-11-2006 were not received in the University, because of which they could not comply with the orders and that the respondent was not aware of the hearing on 7-12-2006. Shri Pandhi has further stated that any lapse which has occurred is a bona fide mistake and is not intentional and has requested that the notice served on him may be dropped.

ii) The respondents have brought with them the complete information wanted by the complainant namely, the annexures of the supplementary note wanted by the complainant and attested copies of all the documents asked for by him.

The complainant is not present. The information provided by the respondent may be sent to him by post or delivered to him by hand if he shows up before closing hours of the office today.

The notice served on the PIO of the University u/s 20 of the RTI Act is dropped.

Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner

JASPREET KAUR Versus STATE OF PB AND ORS CWP 17386 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Date of decision December 14, 2006

Jaspreet Kaur .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ........Respondents

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

Present:-
Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Sh. R. S. Bains, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Viney Mittal, J (Oral)
Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof, has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Concededly, the petitioner has not passed her Biology examination in her 10+1 examination.

As per clause 4 (a) of the prospectus issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (Annexure P-5) providing the eligibility criteria, a student, to be treated as eligible should have passed “the last two years of study comprising of Physics, Chemistry and Biology after the introduction of the 10+2+3 years education structure as
recommended by the National Committee on education.”

In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated to be eligible for the admission to the course, as sought by her.

Dismissed.

The petitioner may seek her appropriate remedies for refund of the fee, which according to the petitioner, had been deposited by her with the College authorities.

Copy of the order be given dasti on usual payment.

(VINEY MITTAL)
JUDGE

(H.S.BHALLA)
JUDGE

NITIKA TANEJA Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH and ORS CWP 18155 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


Date of decision December 11, 2006

Nitika Taneja .......Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others ........Respondents

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

Present:-
Sh. Bipan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. T. S. Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 very fairly states that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No.5843 of 2004 (Assempreet Kundi and another Vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on March 8, 2006.

Learned counsel further informs the Court that in view of the directions issued vide order dated November 17, 2006, the petitioner has already been permitted to take the examination of third professional examination of BAMS course.

Keeping in view the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, we allow the present petition in terms of Assempreet Kundi and another's case (supra). We further direct that the result of the petitioner of third professional examination of BAMS course shall be declared in accordance with law.

The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

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

(VINEY MITTAL)
JUDGE

(H.S.BHALLA)
JUDGE

MADHURLATA AHLUWALIA AND ORS Versus UOI AND ORS CWP 12591 of 2006

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 6.12.2006

Dr.(Mrs.) Madhurlata Ahluwalia and Ors. .........Petitoners
versus
Union of India and otheres .........Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

Present :
Mr.R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Divjot Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr.Sushant Maini, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.2
Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 5
Mr.Ashhay Bhan, Advocate for respondent No.6
Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondent No.7

J U D G M E N T
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioners to M.D. Course of Homeopathy for the academic session 2006-2007.

Petitioner No.1 obtained the diploma course in Homeopathy in the year 1968, whereas, petitioner No.2 obtained the said diploma
course in the year 1971. Petitioner No.1 retired on 31.10.2005 from the Central Government Health Services, West Bengal, Calcutta, where she was working as Chief Medical Officer. Petitioner No.2 retired on
30.4.2006 after having 34 years and 7 months of teaching experience.

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the University), invited applications for admission to Post Graduate M.D. (Homeopathic Course) for the academic session 2006-2007 for external candidates, vide advertisement dated 28.5.2005. The eligibility conditions in the prospectus published by the University for M.D. (Homeopathic) Course, 2006, in respect of external candidates are as follows:-

“External candidates
A candidate who has passed the final examination of a degree or diploma course in Homoeopathy of not less than four years' duration shall be eligible for admission as an
external candidate, if such a candidate a) holds a full time post not below the rank of an Asstt.Professor, or b) has teaching experience of not less than seven years in a recognized Homeopathic Medical College, or
c) has ten years of professional experience.

Note: Compulsory Rotatory Internship is essential.”

The petitioners have applied for the admission to the said course, but their candidatures have been rejected on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the Compulsory Rotatory Internship, which is
essential condition for the eligibility to said course. To counter such objection, the petitioners are relying upon a communication dated 24.7.2006, issued by the Central Council of Homeopathy to the Registrar of the University, to the effect that prior to 11.5.1983 in different States, the diploma courses of different duration with different nomenclature were being conducted and that for considering the candidature of external
candidates for M.D.(Homeopathic) courses for admission purposes, the University needs to check whether a candidate possess a diploma course in Homeopathic medicine course for more than 4 years and that it is
included in the Second Schedule of Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. It was communicated that the holders of the DHMS diploma course are eligible to be considered for admission as external students in M.D.

(Homeopathic), course under the provisions of Part-VI of Homeopathy (Post Graduate Degree Course) Regulations notified by the Council. The same is the stand taken by the Central Council in the written statement
filed before this Court.

However, the stand taken by the University is that the University has a right to determine the eligibility condition. Such condition of Compulsory Rotatory Internship is essential.

Since, the petitioners, admittedly, are not possessed of Compulsory Rotatory Internship, the petitioners have been rightly found ineligible for admission. The fact that prior to 1983, Compulsory Rotatory Internship was not available, is not material as the admission has been denied in accordance with the determined eligibility conditions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since prior to the year 1983, the Compulsory Rotatory Internship was not an essential condition of the curriculum, such condition could not be
made applicable to the petitioners. But, I am unable to agree with such argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Compulsory Rotatory Internship was an essential eligibility condition determined by
the University for the admission as an external candidate. Whether it was compulsory prior to 1983 or not is not relevant as the University thought appropriate to admit only those students to post graduate course possessing such Rotatory Internship.

Therefore, it is an essential condition that the candidate who possesses Compulsory Rotatory Internship, alone be admitted. Such condition in the prospectus is binding on the
University in view of the Full Bench Judgment reported as 1993 (2) PLR-212, Amar Singh Sihota versus State of Punjab. Such condition of eligibility is not contradictory to the conditions fixed by the Central Council of Homeopathy.

Therefore, the University was competent to
prescribe such conditions which are more stringent than fixed by the Council. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the eligibility condition has to be the same as fixed by the Central Council of Homeopathy.

The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as AIR-1998-Supreme Court-2423, Medical Council of India
versus State of Karnataka and others, is not helpful to the petitioner. In fact, in the said case, it has been held that the Medical Council is primarily responsible for fixing the standards of medical education and to see that these standards are maintained. There is nothing in the judgment to show that the Colleges are debarred from imposing a condition which are higher or stringent than the standards fixed by the Medical Council.

In case “Jai Gokul Education Trust versus Commissioner and Secretary to Government High Commissioner etc., reported in AIR 2000-Supreme Court-1614”, the question raised was whether there is any necessity to seek approval of the State Government for starting the Engineering College. It was held that there is no bar, but grant of approval in respect of
any institute which is to be regulated by the All India Council for Technical Education.

The said judgment is again not helpful to the
petitioners for the reasons that the present case is not the case for starting a technical institute, but a case where the eligibility condition has been prescribed over and above the condition prescribed by the Central Council.

Since the petitioners are not found eligible for Post Graduate Course, in terms of the conditions fixed in the prospectus, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in refusing admission to the petitioners.

Dismissed.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual fee.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

VINIT KUMAR ETC Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY ETC CWP 19084 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: December 4, 2006
Vinit Kumar and others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others Respondents

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

PRESENT:
Shri M.S.Rakkar, Senior Advocate with
Shri Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).
The petitioners claim that they are entitled to the grace marks with regard to the examination of 2nd professional BDS course,
which was held in May 2006 and in which the petitioners had obtained less marks than the qualifying marks. The petitioners claim that as per the regulations applicable to them, they are entitled to the aforesaid grace marks and are also entitled to complete their studies of the 3rd professional course.

Shri M.S.Rakkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners states that since the petitioners have already filed detailed representations (Annexures P.2 and P.3) before the Vice Chancellor on which no action has been taken by the Vice Chancellor, therefore, the petitioners would be satisfied if the directions are issued to the Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of
Health Sciences, Faridkot, respondent No.2 to take a final decision on the aforesaid
representations.

In view of the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, but without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, we dispose of the present petition with a request to the Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health
Sciences, Faridkot, respondent No.2 to take a final decision on the representations (Annexures P.2 and P.3) within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, by passing a detailed and speaking order and take such further appropriate action, as may be required, in accordance with law.

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

(Viney Mittal)
Judge

(H.S. Bhalla)
Judge

Versus BABA FARIDUNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 18374 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


DATE OF DECISION: November 30, 2006

Sahil Mittal ….Petitioner
VERSUS
Baba Farid University of Heal Sciences and others
….Respondents

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

PRESENT:
Shri Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).
The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent University to declare the result of the petitioner of 3rd Year Bachelor of Physiotherapy course conducted by the respondent University in November/December 2005 and May/June, 2006. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the then Principal, V.P.Bansal, respondent No.4 on account of some extraneous considerations had not taken note of the classes attended by the petitioner and on that basis had sent an internal assessment indicating zero marks. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the University had not declared the result of the petitioner. It has also been averred by the petitioner that subsequently on suspension of the aforesaid Principal, V.P.Bansal, new Principal had taken over the charge and had forwarded the appropriate and proper internal assessment on the basis of lectures attended by him.

Shri Anupam Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, on the other hand, has produced before us a notification dated April 28, 2006, whereby on account of the internal assessment forwarded by the then Principal qua the petitioner, his candidature had been cancelled.

However,Sh.Gupta has also produced before us a communication dated October 19,2006 by the new Principal of DAV Institute of Physiotherapy and
Rehabilitation, Jalandhar, respondent No.3, whereby fresh internal assessment qua the petitioner has been forwarded to the University.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the new Principal has sent a revised internal assessment of the petitioner, the University is directed to declare the revised result of the petitioner forthwith on the basis of new internal assessment forwarded by the new Principal.

The present petition is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid direction.

The original internal assessment produced by Shri
Anupam Gupta in a sealed cover is returned back to him.

A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of Special Secretary attached with this Court.

(Viney Mittal)
Judge

(H.S. Bhalla)
Judge

Sh Bachan Singh Mundra Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh.Bachan Singh Mundra, Advocate,
# 1014, Phase 4, SAS Nagar,

MOHALI
-----------Complainant


Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Vice Chancellor,
Baba Farid University,
FARIDABAD. ----------Respondent


CC No. 325 of 2006

Present:
i) Sh.Bachan Singh Mundra, complainant in person.

ORDER

Heard.

In compliance with the orders of this Court passed on 26.10.2006, a copy of the supplementary note has been provided by the respondent to the complainant but there is a reference in the note described as “Annexure 1”, a copy of which has not been given. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to send a copy of the Annexure -1, which forms an essential part of the supplementary note, to the complainant within seven days of the date of receipt of this order.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 7-12-2006 for confirmation of compliance.



(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner

16th November,2006

PRABHJOT KAUR Versus BABA FARID UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P NO.17671 OF 2006

Date of decision : November 14, 2006

Prabhjot Kaur ............Petitioner
Vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others ...Respondents

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

Present:
Mr. D.P.S Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Parampreet Brar, Advocate for Mr. T.S Dhindsa, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2.
Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has approached this Court claiming that although she is eligible, having passed her +1 and +2 Examination from Punjab School Education Board but she is being denied admission to B.Sc Nursing Course absolutely without any justification. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that on an earlier occasion at the time of first counselling at Government Medical College, Patiala, the petitioner was offered a seat in the Course of Physiotherapy but since she wanted admission in the Nursing course therefore, she did not accept the aforesaid offer.

However, later on at the time of third counselling, she had been denied admission as per her rank and merit position.

Sh. Parampreet Brar, Advocate has produced before us the original record and the application form submitted by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid record, learned counsel has pointed out that although the petitioner had secured the rank as described by her in the petition and her merit position described in the petition is also correct but the allegation that she had ever been offered any seat in the Phsiotheraphy course in the first counselling held at Government Medical College, Patiala is absolutely incorrect inasmuch as at the time of scrutiny, it was realized by the University authorities that the application form submitted by the petitioner was incomplete inasmuch as the certificate of her passing +1 examination was not so attached. The petitioner wanted to attach the aforesaid certificate only at the time of third counselling, which was not permissible as per the stipulation contained in the prospectus. It has also been maintained that the application form is incomplete, therefore her request for participation in the third counselling cannot be accepted.

Keeping in view the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent-University on the basis of the original record, we do not find any merit in the present petition.

Dismissed.

( VINEY MITTAL )
JUDGE

( H.S BHALLA )
JUDGE

MANMOHAN SINGH Versus VICE CHANCELLOR BABA FARID UNIV CWP 15389 OF 2006

C.W.P NO.15389 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Date of decision : October 27, 2006

Manmohan Singh ............Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of ...........Respondents Health Sciences and others


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

Present:
Mr. R.S Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. T.S Dhindsa, Advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2.

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent-Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot-respondent no.2 to declare the result of the petitioner of BAMS Second Professional Examination which according to the petitioner has been withheld without any justification by the respondent- University. The petitioner has claimed that he was already eligible and had qualified the re-appear examination in Sanskrit of BAMS First Professional Examination and thus having passed all the subjects of BAMS First
Professional Examination, the result of the petitioner for BAMS Second Professional Examination cannot be withheld.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made by the petitioner, which have not been disputed on behalf of the respondent-University, we find that the controversy in the present case stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by a judgement of this Court passed by one of us (Viney Mittal, J.) in `Aseempreet Kundi and another Vs. State of Punjab and others'
rendered in CWP No.5843 of 2004 decided on March 8, 2006.

In view of the declaration in Aseempreet Kundi's case (Supra), we find that petitioner had obtained eligibility and qualification to appear in BAMS Second Professional Examination and as such having appeared in the aforesaid examination was entitled to the declaration of his result. In this view of the matter, we allow the present petition and direct respondent no.2 to declare the result of the petitioner of BAMS Second Professional Examination forthwith.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )
JUDGE

( H.S BHALLA )
JUDGE

JASKARAN SINGH AND ORSS Versus ST OF PB AND ORS CWP 16503 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : October 27, 2006

Jaskaran Singh and others ............Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...........Respondents

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

Present:
Mr. B.S Sra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 and 4.
Mr. T.S Dhindsa, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3.

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Clause 7(b) and Clause 6 (d)(v) of the Ordinance issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences-respondent no.2. Additionally, the petitioners have prayed that respondent-University be directed to issue roll numbers to the petitioners and allow them to take examination of Third Year Professional B.P.T Course along with the supplementary examination of second year to be conducted by the University in November, 2006.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made by the petitioners, which are not even disputed by the respondent-University, in any manner, we find that the controversy in the present case stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by a judgement of this Court passed by one of us (Viney Mittal, J) in `Aseempreet Kundi and another Vs. State of Punjab and others'
rendered in CWP No.5843 of 2004 decided on March 8, 2006. A similar challenge was made to various ordinances in Aseempreet Kundi's case (Supra), but the said clause of the ordinances were upheld.

However, on an harmonious construction of various clauses, certain directions had been issued to the University.

In view of the fact that we find that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by a judgement in Aseempreet Kundi's case (Supra), and for the reasons in the said judgement, we allow the present
petition and direct the respondents to issue roll numbers to the petitioners and to allow them to take Examination of Third year Professional B.P.T Course along with the supplementary Examination of second year to be conducted by the University in November 2006.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )
JUDGE

( H.S BHALLA )
JUDGE

MAMTA SHARMA AND ORS Versus ST OF PB AND ORS CWP 16501 OF 2006

C.W.P NO.16501 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Date of decision : October 27, 2006

Mamta Sharma and another ............Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...........Respondents

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

Present:
Mr. B.S Sra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 and 4.
Mr. T.S Dhindsa, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3.

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Clause 8(b) and Clause 7 (d)(v) of the Ordinance issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences-respondent no.2. Additionally, the petitioners have prayed that respondent-University be directed to issue roll numbers to the petitioners and allow them to take examination of Fourth Year Professional Examination along with the supplementary examination of third year to be conducted by the University in November, 2006.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made by the petitioners, which are not even disputed by the respondent-University, in any manner, we find that the controversy in the present case stands concluded in favour of the petitioners by a judgement of this Court passed by one of us (Viney Mittal, J) in `Aseempreet Kundi and another Vs. State of Punjab and others' rendered in CWP No.5843 of 2004 decided on March 8, 2006. A similar challenge was made to various ordinances in Aseempreet Kundi's case (Supra), but the said clause of the ordinances were upheld.

However, on an harmonious construction of various clauses, certain directions had been issued to the University.

In view of the fact that we find that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by a judgement in Aseempreet Kundi's case (Supra), and for the reasons in the said judgement, we allow the present
petition and direct the respondents to issue roll numbers to the petitioners and to allow them to take Examination of 4th year Professional B.P.T Course
along with the supplementary Examination of third year to be conducted by the University in November 2006.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )
JUDGE

( H.S BHALLA )
JUDGE

State Information Commission directs University to provide information

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 84-85 SECTOR 17 CHANDIGARH

Sh. Bachan Singh Mundra,Advocate,
1014, Phase 4, SAS Nagar, Mohali. ---Complainant.

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Vice Chancellor,
Baba Farid University of Health,
FARIDKOT. ---Respondent.

CC No. 325 of 2006

Present: i) Sh. Bachan Singh Mundra complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Davinder Singh Brar, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.

The respondent has today raised the following objections to the request of the complainant for the required information, which are dealt with ad seriatum as under:-
i) He states that the papers placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting are confidential. However, he is not claiming exemption under any of the categories mentioned under section 8 of the RTI Act. In any case, the required information, prima facie, also does not fall with in any of the said categories.

ii) The respondent has stated that the application of the complainant was rejected and he should therefore make an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, who is the Registrar of the University. This objection also is not valid since the application for the information was made on 16.6.2006 and no reply has been sent to the complainant .

In the above circumstances, the Respondent is directed to supply to the complainant a copy of the supplementary note on the subject of the appointment of Shri K.P.Singh, as Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar of the University, which was put up before the meeting of the Board of Management in its meeting held on 21.4.2006, within 10 days of the receipt of this order.

 

Contd…2/-
(2)

This is a case where unreasonable delay has been caused without any apparent explanation for not having followed the clear cut provisions of the RTI Act. It is ,therefore, made clear that if the aforementioned orders are not implemented in letter and spirit , it would lead to involving the penalty provision provided under section 20 of the RTI Act.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 16.11.2006 for confirmation of compliance.

 

(P .K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner.

26th October,2006



Sh Bachan Singh Mundra Advocate versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 84-85 SECTOR 17 CHANDIGARH

Sh. Bachan Singh Mundra,Advocate,
1014, Phase 4, SAS Nagar, Mohali. ---Complainant.

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Vice Chancellor,
Baba Farid University of Health,
FARIDKOT. ---Respondent.


CC No. 325 of 2006

Present:
i) Sh. Bachan Singh Mundra complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Davinder Singh Brar, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

The respondent has today raised the following objections to the request of the complainant for the required information, which are dealt with ad seriatum as under:-
i) He states that the papers placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting are confidential. However, he is not claiming exemption under any of the categories mentioned under section 8 of the RTI Act. In any case, the required information, prima facie, also does not fall with in any of the said categories.

ii) The respondent has stated that the application of the complainant was rejected and he should therefore make an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, who is the Registrar of the University. This objection also is not valid since the application for the information was made on 16.6.2006 and no reply has been sent to the complainant .

In the above circumstances, the Respondent is directed to supply to the complainant a copy of the supplementary note on the subject of the appointment of Shri K.P.Singh, as Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar of the University, which was put up before the meeting of the Board of Management in its meeting held on 21.4.2006, within 10 days of the receipt of this order.
This is a case where unreasonable delay has been caused without any apparent explanation for not having followed the clear cut provisions of the RTI Act. It is ,therefore, made clear that if the aforementioned orders are not implemented in letter and spirit , it would lead to involving the penalty provision provided under section 20 of the RTI Act.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 16.11.2006 for confirmation of compliance.



(P .K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner.

26th October,2006

PAWAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF PB and ORS Civil Writ Petition 1799 of 2006



JUSTINDEEP Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCI andANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


Date of decision September 11, 2006

Justindeep
.......Petitioner
Versus
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others
........Respondents

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

Present:-
Sh. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. R. S. Bains, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof, has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the University- respondent No.1 to register him as a regular student of B.Sc. Nursing Course-2005 and to accept his candidature for first year examination of B.Sc. Nursing course.

Sh. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner dated September 4, 2006, maintains that one additional seat had become vacant in college-respondent No.2 inasmuch as one Ramandeep Kaur who was studying in the college had left her studies and that the petitioner can be accommodated on the aforesaid seat which had become vacant. Sh. Arora further maintains that the aforesaid vacant seat on account of abandoning of her course by Ramandeep Kaur is the 40th seat and as such even if the petitioner is accommodated on the said vacant seat the total seats in the college shall not exceed the sanctioned strength.

Sh. R.S. Bains, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University however, states that the respondent-University has not been provided any information by the college with regard to the aforesaid fact and as such, the University is not in a position to comment upon the stand taken by the petitioner in this regard. Sh. Bains further maintains that if the college provides the aforesaid information to University that the seat having been vacated by Ramandeep is within the sanctioned strength of 40 seats then the claim of the petitioner shall be sympathetically considered by the University.

In view of the fair stand taken by Sh. Bains, Sh. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the present petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach
the college-respondent No.2 so that the communication on the factual position can be addressed by the college to the respondent-University.

The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
liberty to the petitioner. We also take note that vide interim order dated May 11, 2006, the petitioner had been permitted to appear in the first year examination of B.Sc Nursing Course which was scheduled to be held w.e.f. May 16, 2005. The aforesaid permission granted to the petitioner was totally provisional and was to abide by the final decision of the present petition.

In view of the disposal of the present writ petition, we
direct that the aforesaid protection granted to the petitioner shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. If, any communication, as maintained by the petitioner, is received by the respondent-University within the aforesaid period of six weeks then the result of the petitioner shall be declared by the respondent-University. However, if the respondent- University fails to get any information in this regard from the respondentcollege then in that case the permission granted to the petitioner to appear
in the examination shall automatically lapse and in that situation, the petitioner shall not claim any benefit of the aforesaid provisional order.

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

(VINEY MITTAL)
JUDGE

(H.S. BHALLA)
JUDGE

PRABHOOR SINGH HAYER AND OTHERS Vs BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHER Civil Writ Petition 17820 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.19432 of 2008

Date of Decision: February 10, 2009

Simrandeep Singh Sandhu .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Panjab University, Chandigarh and Others .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the respondents.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the Syndicate, on 25.1.2009, has considered the representation of the petitioner and condoned the shortage of lectures.

In view of the above, this petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

Baba Farid varsity to start functioning from next session

FARIDKOT, May 26: The proposed Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, the foundation stone for which was laid by Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal on October 6, last year, will start functioning from the ensuing academic session. The state government will soon appoint vice-chancellor to the university, the process for whose selection is under way.
This was disclosed by deputy commissioner Gurinder Singh Grewal at a hurriedly convened press conference this afternoon. The deputy commissioner refuted press reports that Baba Farid University was being shifted from Faridkot to Anandpur Sahib to mark the tri-centenary celebrations of Khalsa Panth. He said that he could deny these reports on the basis of the information he received in this regard from Rameshinder Singh, principal secretary of the Punjab Chief Minister.

According to the DC, the state government had already allocated a sum of Rs 50-crore for the university and the district administration had already acquired 35 acre of land on Faridkot-Talwandi road for the purpose. The process for acquisition of another 122-acre of land was in an advance stage.

Ms Baljot Kaur versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

Ms.Baljot Kaur,
d/o Dr.Pritpal Singh,
94-K, Sarabha Nagar,
Ludhiana. …..……......Appellant.


Vs.

Public Information Officer
o/o Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot ………….Respondent

AC No.19 of 2007
ORDER

Present :
Dr. Preet Pal Singh on behalf of the Appellant. sh.J.S.Jaidka, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

On 13.08.2007, we had ordered that the information in question be delivered to the Appellant within a period of 15 days. At that time, we had taken the view that the responsibility for supply of information was that of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and not of the Punjab University, Chandigarh.

2. The Punjab University, Chandigarh was merely an agent of Baba Farid University for the conduct of the examination. Respondent submits before us today that the order of the Commission in regard to supply of information has been challenged by way of a writ petition filed on 01.09.2007. He pleads that time be given to await the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Respondent admits that the Hon’ble High Court has not so far granted any stay of the order made by the Commission. According to the Respondent, the matter is likely come up before the Hon’ble High Court on 6th September, 2007.

3. Appellant, on the order hand, makes a written submission and also argues orally before us that the orders of the Commission for supply of information have not been implemented and this amounts to wilful disobedience to the directions by the Commission. He also points out that there has been no stay of the proceedings instituted under the RTI Act, 2005. The written submission of the Appellant is brought on record.

4. We find no justification whatever for the failure of the Respondent in implementing the order dated 13.08.2007 made by the Commission. We, therefore, direct that the Respondent should show cause why penalty under Section 20 RTI Act, 2005, be not imposed upon him and also why the Appellant be not compensated by the University for the detriment caused to her. The mere filing of the writ petition does not result in an automatic stay of the operation of the orders made by the Commission.

5. To come up for further proceedings on 10.10.2007. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

(Rajan Kashyap)
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh

Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner


(Mrs. Ravi Singh) State Information Commissioner

Shri Bachan Singh versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Shri Bachan Singh ....Complainant
Vs.

PIO/ Baba Farid University .....Respondent.

CC No-061-2006:

Present:
Shri Bachan Singh Advocate, complainant in person.
Shri J.S. Jaidka, Advocate, for Municipal Council Sirhind Mandi

Order:

Shri Bachan Singh Mundra Advocate, vide his complaint dated 13-12-2006 made to the State Information Commission submitted that his application dated 27-7-2006 made to the Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot has not been attended to properly as the P.I.O. has stated that the required document is not available in the University record. This position has been reiterated two times by the P.I.O. A copy of the complaint along with annexures was sent to the P.I.O. office of Registrar Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot for response within 15 days for consideration of the Commission. In response, the P.I.O. stated that the applicant was informed vide letter dated 20-10-2006 that the alleged letter was not available in the record of the University. In reply to a fresh letter dated 13-11-2006 from the applicant, he was informed once again vide letter dated 2-2-2007 that no such record was available in the record of the University.

Further,
“That as no such letter is available in the record of this University, the same can be supplied to the applicant. It is very strange that the applicant wants to get a copy of letter which has not been officially received in this University and which is not available in the record of this University. If any such letter is in the knowledge of the applicant or if he knows the dispatch or receipt numbers, or date, he may please be asked to supply it to the University, so that appropriate action be initiated against the erring official responsible for concealing information.

CC No-061-2006: -2-
1) The original application dated July 27, 2006 has been seen. In Para (3) (ii) thereof it is mentioned “the period of which the information relates is 19-6-2006 or near about this date. Further, it is stated “copy of the (alleged circular letter written by Shri Pyare Lal Garg to all members and or any member of B.O.M” On the other side is written :circumstantial evidence” However, vide his letter dated January 27, 2007, he has further clarified in which he has stated as under:

2) “That since the contents of the letter dated 13-11-2006 of the Complainant have not been denied, the stand of the PIO may therefore, be accepted as admission that the letter, copy of which is sought for, was issued to the Members of the Board.

3) That the complainant again reiterates that the Respondent PIO is not denying the issue of letter and he may be directed to supply a copy of the same after checking up the dispatch records/register of the University.

4) That Dr. Pyare Lal Garg, who had to quit the Registrar’s post after High Court orders on W.P. challenging his appointment being illegal, is still an employee of the University, as Coordinator/Liaison officer of the University. He may be directed to file a statement on Oath that he never signed the letter for issue to the Members of Board, copy of which is being requested under RTI.”

3. Although, we find that the reply of the University is very clear and explicit that no such letter has official been issued, but since Shri P.L. Garg, is, according to the complaint, still on the roll of the University, the PIO is hereby given one more opportunity to make inquiries from him and from other members of the Board and to find out whether any such circular dated 19-06-2006 or near about this date was issued by him to all Members of the Board of Management.
Adjourned to July 18, 2007.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

S Bachan Singh Mundra versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) Faridkot

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

S. Bachan Singh Mundra,
Advocate,
1014, Phase 4,
MOHALI. ___________Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer
O/oVice Chancellor,
Baba Farid University of Health,
FARIDKOT.
___________Respondent
CC No. 325 of 2006

Present:
i)S. Bachan Singh Mundra,Complainant in person.

ORDER

Heard.

Neither the PIO, nor his representative was present in the Court when this case was heard on 16.11.2006 and similar is the position today. The complainant has stated that the orders of this Court dated 16/11/2006 have also not been complied with and a copy of the annexure which forms a part of the supplementary note has not been given to him.

In the above circumstances, I serve notice on the PlO O/o Baba Farid University of Health,Faridkot to show cause at 10 AM on 11/01/2007, as to why the penalty of Rs. 250 per day w.e.f, 24 November2006, the date on which the Information (Annexure) became due, should not be imposed on him u/s 20 of theRTI Act till the date when it is supplied.

The complainant has stated that the information already provided to him is not attested and has requested that this may be done. The respondent is accordingly further directed to provide attested copies of the information already provided to the complainant, before the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 11/01/2007 for further orders.

(P.K.Verma)

State Information Commissioner.

Profile of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences

Established in the memory of great Sufi Saint Baba Farid by Punjab govt. in July, 1998 by an Act of the State Legislature.

Fifth of its kind in India, First in Northern India- Punjab Govt. deserves the credit of establishing it.

Due to inadequacy of health professionals(in quantity & quality) the need was imminent. Such a University is expected to be a “Pace-setter” – in developing appropriate modes & models of Health Care.

University committed to providing Community oriented need based education & Training programmes for Health professionals.



The University has following six faculties:

•Faculty of Medical Sciences
•Faculty of Dental Sciences
•Faculty of Nursing Sciences
•Faculty of Ayurveda
•Faculty of Physiotherapy
•Faculty of Homoeopathy

Recognition of Degrees
His Excellency the Governor of Punjab has recognized all the degrees and diplomas certificates and other academic distinctions awarded by the this University w.e.f. 1st July, 1999.

The Govt. of India has recognized the MBBS, MD/MS/PG Diploma/BDS/Bsc(Nursing)/M.Sc.(Nursing) being awarded by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences

DCI/CCH/CCIM has recommended to Govt. of India for the recognition of MDS/BHMS/BAMS degrees awarded by this University

Membership
Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi
SAARC Universities
Association of Commonwealth Universities, London
University Grants Commission under Section 2(f) of its Act, 1956.
Included in the World Health Directory of Medical Schools.

About BFUHS

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences was established under an Act passed by the Legislature of the State of Punjab in July, 1998. The mission of the University is to create an intellectual, academic and physical environment, conducive to free flow of ideas and exchange of information between various faculties of the University and between this University and other Universities of Health Sciences in the country and abroad,thereby opening a window to the world for the health professionals, health planners, health managers, biomedical and social scientists and educators in health sciences of the country .

•Established in the memory of great Sufi Saint Baba Farid by Punjab govt. in July, 1998 by an Act of the State Legislature.

Fifth of its kind in India, First in Northern India- Punjab Govt. deserves the credit of establishing it.Due to inadequacy of health professionals(in quantity & quality) the need was imminent. Such a University is expected to be a 'Pace-setter' - in developing appropriate modes & models of Health Care. University committed to providing Community oriented need based education & Training programmes for Health professionals.

Introduction

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences or BFUHS Faridkot, one of the noted medical institutions in India, has been established under an Act passed by the Legislature of the State of Punjab in 1998. It is a state university and member of the Association of Indian Universities (AIU).

The university also has the membership of Association of SAARC Universities, and Association of Commonwealth Universities, London. Funded by University Grants Commission, UGC, it has also been included in the World Health Directory of Medical Schools. The university is fifth of its kind in India as well as first in Punjab.

History

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences was established under an Act 1998 passed by the Legislature of the State of Punjab Government in the memory of great Sufi Saint Baba Farid. It has produced a large number of medical professionals.

Educational Streams

BFUHS is a pace-setter in developing appropriate modes and models of Health Care through undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Health Sciences. MBBS, MD/MS/PG Diploma/BDS/B Sc (Nursing)/M Sc (Nursing) awarded by the university are recognized by the Government of Punjab. The courses have been designed with need-based prospectus of medical field. It is committed to providing Community oriented need based education & Training programs for Health professionals. There are a number of colleges, institutions and research centers under the affiliation of this university nurturing professional courses on health sciences.

Facilities
Apart from other facilities, BFUHS maintains an efficient and helpful health sciences library for students of graduate, post graduate, and research level. Students can get access to computerized library system and high standard of project support from university. Several laboratories are equipped with appropriate machinery and tools.

Faculties/Departments

Faculties/Departments:
* Faculty of Medical Sciences

* Faculty of Dental Sciences

* Faculty of Nursing Sciences

* Faculty of Ayurveda

* Faculty of Physiotherapy

* Faculty of Homoeopathy

Colleges affiliated with this University

Total number of colleges affiliated with this University = 95
1 Adesh College of Nursing, Bathinda
2 Adesh College of Physiotherapy, Bathinda (Bhatinda)
3 Adesh College of Physiotherapy, Muktsar
4 Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bathinda
5 Aggarwal College of Nursing, Guru Har Sahai
6 APS College of Nursing, Malsian
7 Army College of Nursing, Jalandhar
8 Baba Banda Bahadur College of Nursing, Faridkot
9 Baba Banda Bahadur School of Nursing, Faridkot
10 Baba Farid College of Nursing, Kotkapura
11 Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College, Hospital and Research Institute, Ludhiana
12 Baba Moni Ji Maharaj College of Nursing, Lehra Mohabbat
13 Baba Muni College of Nursing, Lehra Mohabbat
14 Babe Ke Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Daudhar
15 Ber Sahib (BST) College of Nursing, Beharipur
16 BFUHS University College of Nursing, Faridkot
17 BFUHS University College of Physiotherapy, Faridkot
18 Bharat Instiute of Nursing Training, Mudh Village
19 Bibi Chann Kaur College of Nursing, Sardulgarh
20 BST College of Nursing, Kapurthala
21 Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital, Pathankot
22 CMC College of Nursing, Ludhiana
23 CMC College of Physiotherapy, Ludhiana
24 College of Nursing, AIMS, Muktsar
25 College of Nursing, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana
26 Dashmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Faridkot
27 Davindra College of Nursing, Patti
28 Dayanand Ayurvedic College, Jalandhar
29 Desh Bhagat Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh
30 Dr Shyam Lal College of Physiotherapy, Moga
31 Dr Shyam Lal Thapar College of Nursing, Moga
32 Dr Shyam Lal Thapar School of Nursing, Moga
33 Genesis Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Ferozepur
34 GHG College of Nursing and Bansal Hospital, Raikot
35 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Banur
36 Gian Sagar Dental College and Hospital, Banur
37 Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Banur
38 Government Ayurvedic College, Patiala
39 Government College of Nursing, Amritsar
40 Government Medical College, Amritsar
41 Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala
42 Govt College of Nursing, Patiala
43 Gursewa College of Nursing, Garhshankar
44 Guru Gobind Singh College of Nursing, Talwandi Sabo
45 Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot
46 Guru Nanak Ayurvedic Medical College, Muktsar
47 Guru Nanak Ayurvedic Medical College and Research Institute, Gopalpur Village
48 Indo American College of Nursing, Moga
49 Institute of Homoeopathic Medical Education and Research, Chunni Kalan
50 International College of Nursing, Tarn Taran
51 Kular College of Nursing, Khanna
52 Lala Lajpat Rai Institute of Nursing Education Gulab Devi Hospital, Jalandhar
53 Lord Mahavir Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana
54 Mai Bhago Ayurvedic Medical College for Women, Muktsar
55 Mai Bhago College of Nursing, Tarn Taran
56 Malwa College of Nursing, Kotkapura
57 Mata Sahib Kaur College of Nursing, Mohali (SAS Nagar)
58 Mohan Dai Oswal College of Nursing, Ludhiana
59 Mother Marry Institute of Nursing, Hoshiarpur
60 National Dental College and Hospital Gulabgarh, Dera Bassi
61 Punjab Government Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar
62 Rayat Bahra College of Nursing, Hoshiarpur
63 Royal Institute of Nursing, Jaito Sarja
64 Saint Sahara Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Bathinda
65 Sanjeevani College of Nursing, Daudpur
66 Sanjeevani Institute of Nursing, Khanna
67 Saraswati Education Society Group, Gharuan
68 SGL Nursing GNM School, Jalandhar
69 SGTB College of Nursing, Amritsar
70 Sh Guru Ram Dass School of Nursing, Hoshiarpur
71 Shaheed Bhagat Singh School of Nursing, Sodewala
72 Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha Ayurvedic Med College and Hospital, Sarabha (Ludhiana)
73 Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha Dental College, Ludhiana
74 Shiv Shakti College of Nursing, Bhikhi
75 Shri Guru Ram Dass (SGRD) College of Nursing, Hoshiarpur
76 Shri Guru Ram Dass College of Nursing, Pandher
77 Shri Lakshmi Narayan Ayurvedic College, Amritsar
78 Sigma College of Nursing, Ludhiana
79 Silver Oaks College of Nursing, Abhipur Village
80 Silver Oaks School and College of Nursing, Abhipur Village
81 Smt Urmila Devi Ayurvedic College of Medical Sciences and Hosptial, Kharkan (Hoshiarpur)
82 Smt Urmila Devi College of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Kharkan (Hoshiarpur)
83 Smt Urmila Devi Institute of BSc Nursing, Kharkan (Hoshiarpur)
84 Sri Guru Nanak Dev Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana
85 Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar
86 Sri Sukhmani College of Nursing, Dera Bassi
87 Sri Sukhmani Dental College and Hospital, Dera Bassi
88 SSMD Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Moga
89 St Soldier College of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Jalandhar
90 State Institute of Nursing and Para Medical Sciences, Badal Village
91 Sukhjinder Novel Institute of Nursing, Dhar Kalan
92 SV Memorial College of Nursing, Amritsar
93 Tara Institute of Physiotherapy, Chaheru Village
94 University Institute of Paramedical Sciences (UIPS), Faridkot
95 Urmila Devi School of Nursing, Hoshiarpur


Some other Colleges in Punjab
St Soldier College, Phagwara
Basti Danishmandan Hadiabad
Phagwara (District Kapurthala)
Punjab
Bhagwati College of Education for Girls, Bhikhi
Sunam Raod
Bhikhi (District Mansa)
Punjab
New Punjab Polytechnic College Nangla, Bathinda
Talwani Sabo - Rori Road
Village Nagla
Bathinda (District Bathinda)
Punjab
Sai College of Education, Sardulapur

Sardulapur (District Hoshiarpur)
Punjab
Malwa College of Education, Kotkapura
Faridkot Road, Near Railway Crossing
Kotkapura (District Faridkot)
Punjab
© www.punjabcolleges.com : Engineering Colleges and deemed Universities in India      Disclaimer