BHARTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING qualified the M.B.B.S., examination in, December, 1985,' the Petitioner applied for one year's house job in Government Medical College, Patiala, with a view to have her post -graduation attainments. It is the undisputed position that during one year's house job, a student can have attainments in two specialties of his choice. She was selected and appointed to do House job in Anesthesia for six months, i.e., from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 1986, and she has successfully completed this term. Next she sought appointment for house job in Gynecology and Obstetrics commencing from July 1, 1986. She was duly selected and as a matter of fact she joined this course. This selection of hers was, however, made subject to a medical fitness certificate which she was to obtain from the Professor Incharge of the Gynaecology Department. As per this requirement, she obtained a medical fitness certificate (Annexure P. 2) from Dr. K.K. Sandhu, Professor of Gynaecology Department.

(2.) SINCE Respondent No. 2, i.e., Medical Superintendent, Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, did not feel satisfied with the certificate of Dr. Sandhu, he made a reference to the Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, to find out whether 28 weeks pregnancy of the Petitioner could render her unfit for the house job for which she had been selected and appointed. The Director replied to the said query in the following manner, - -vide his communication, dated July 4. 1986, (Annexure P. 3):

(3.) THE Petitioner impugns this action of Respondent No. 2 firstly on the ground that the Petitioner's pregnancy, as noticed above, does not render her physically and mentally unfit for the house job or the duties she is supposed to perform as a House Surgeon, and secondly her appointment as such is not violative of the criteria laid down by the Government, - -vide its communication, dated September 22, 1976 (Annexure P.5). The stand of the Respondent -authorities, as disclosed in the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 filed on behalf of other Respondents also, is that the termination of the services of the Petitioner as House Surgeon is strictly legal and valid. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I find that the stand of the Respondent -authorities must be repelled.