MANU KALIA Vs. POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, SECTOR 12, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether admission of the petitioner in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course could have been cancelled by the respondent authorities because of their inter se communication gap, is the pivotal issue involved in the present case that falls for consideration of this Court. Facts of the case, which are hardly in dispute, are that the petitioner was a gold medalist in B.Sc. (Medical Lab Technology) from Panjab University. Being eligible, petitioner competed for admission in the two years post graduation M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course, for the academic session 2011-13 in the respondent institute, vide Annexure P-1. Petitioner was admitted in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course as per his merit. Clause 7 of the admission order, Annexure P-1 was that during the course, neither the student will do private practice nor will join any service anywhere. However, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent institute itself, for the post of Junior Lab Technician, petitioner applied because he was eligible for it and he was selected, as per his merit. He was selected for the post of Junior Lab Technician vide Annexure P-2. Immediately thereafter, petitioner wrote to the Director of the respondent institute vide Annexure P-3, seeking extension in time for joining to the post of Junior Lab Technician, enabling him to complete his M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course. This communication was duly received vide diary No. 25934 dated 22.10.2012. On the very next day, petitioner repeated his request through proper channel, which was dispatched vide No. 1798 dated 23.10.2012 and was duly received vide diary No. 26039 dated 23.10.2012, as per Annexure P-4. When no response was received, petitioner again wrote to the respondent authorities vide Annexure P-5 dated 30.10.2012 which was also received vide diary No. 26608 and was replied to the petitioner vide communication dated 9.11.2012 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner again wrote in this regard vide Annexures P-7 and P-8, seeking extension in time for joining till completion of his M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course. Again, similar request was made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-9. In spite of the above said repeated requests having been made and despite the above said communication dated 9.11.2012, no further time was granted to the petitioner and he was allowed to join his duty as Junior Lab Technician w.e.f. 1.1.2013 in the department of Haematology . An office order was issued on 25.1.2013 (Annexure P-10) transferring the petitioner from Haematology Department to the Biochemistry Department. Petitioner again wrote to the respondent institute on 2.3.2013 through proper channel, seeking permission to complete M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course, while working as Junior Lab Technician. This application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Head of the Department vide his endorsement dated 2.3.2013. When nothing was heard, petitioner submitted his request for extraordinary leave vide his application dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure P-12).

(2.) In the interregnum, term of the M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course, which was being pursued by the petitioner, came to an end and he was issued an admit card under roll No. 238 vide Annexure P-13, permitting him to appear in the examination. Schedule of the final examination of M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course came to be issued and the examination was to start w.e.f. 4.5.2013. Petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination on 4.5.2013. However, on 4.5.2013 itself, the impugned order Annexure P-14 was passed cancelling the admission of the petitioner in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course, Thus, feeling aggrieved against the the above said impugned order dated 4.5.2013, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order. Notice of motion was issued on 7.5.2013, by passing the following order:-

(3.) In compliance of the above said order, written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been informing about his appointment, to the respondent authorities, at every relevant point of time. He further submits that neither there was any occasion to conceal anything nor the petitioner, as a matter of fact, concealed anything from the respondent authorities. The petitioner had been bonafide pursuing his M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course. He next contended that the official communication dated 9.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) would show that the respondent authorities were fully aware that the petitioner was a student of M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course and he was selected as Junior Lab Technician in the respondent institute. Once it was so, it would amount to deem waiver of Clause 7 of Annexure P-1, at the instance of the respondent authorities. He concluded by submitting that the impugned order was an ex parte order which was passed behind the back of the petitioner. No show cause notice was issued to him, because of which the impugned order was liable to be set aside.