DR. SANJAY GOYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed to the Punjab Civil Medical Service, Class II, on March 14, 1988. This appointment was made on ad hoc basis. On Jan. 1, 1991, the petitioner's services were regularised. The petitioner was a candidate for admission to the Post Graduate Course leading to the degree of M.D. (Medicine). He appeared in the entrance examination held in the year 1991. A number of candidates including the petitioner filed various writ petitions which were decided by the Division Bench vide its order dated May 8, 1992. It was observed that ''about forty seats belonging to the All India Basis Quota in the Post-graduation courses at Medical Colleges of Amritsar and Patiala are lying untilised, as the candidates nominated against those seats have not chosen to join the respective colleges for admission. It was, accordingly, directed that the seats shall be filled up from amongst the petitioners.'' In pursuance of these directions, the respondents issued a No Objection Certificate vide their letter date June 19, 1992. A copy of this certificate is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. It was stipulated that the petitioner ''shall be entitled to extra-ordinary leave and lien shall be retained in service for the duration of the course.'' Accordingly, the petitioner was admitted to the course. He executed a bond by which he undertook to serve the Punjab Government for five years on the completion of the Post Graduate Course. He also submitted an affidavit stating inter alia that he ''should be treated on extra-ordinary leave during the period of Post Graduation and .... lien may be retained in service. The petitioner alleges that these conditions were imposed in pursuance of the instructions issued vide the ''Punjab Government letter dated 23.7.92 which deals with the conditions of service of those doctors undergoing post-graduate degree/diploma and super speciality courses''. The petitioner further alleges that these instructions are illegal, invalid and suffer from the vice of discrimination. He claims that he is entitled to the payment of full salary for the period during which he was studying for the Post Graduate Course. Accordingly, he prays that the instructions issued by the State Government be quashed and that the respondents may be directed to pay him the salary as has been paid to his batch-mates.

(2.) The petitioner filed a Civil Misc. application No. 3176 of 1993 by which he sought permission to place on record a copy of the instructions issued by the Government vide circular letter dated Jan. 20, 1993. In these instructions, it was inter alia provided that PCMS doctors who have completed three years regular service and rural service including ad hoc service of three years would be admitted against 60% seats and given full salary during the course of study. Those who are working on merely ad hoc basis would be required to resign their posts and would be paid stipend in accordance with the prevailing instructions. A copy of these instructions was taken on record as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioner also filed Civil Misc. application No. 4647 of 1996 with which he produced the copy of the instructions issued by the Department vide letter dated Sept. 2, 1993. In these instructions, it was inter alia provided that ''the regular PCMS Doctors who have completed three years rural service (including ad hoc) and whose record is alright would be given 60% quota seats on their selection to the Govt. Medical Colleges and would be appointed as Junior Residents and for the period of course they will be given full salary''. Alongwith this, he also produced the certificate dated May 8, 1992 as Annexure P-6. The Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab had certified that the petitioner had rendered rural service from March 14, 1988 till the issue of the certificate. The claim of the petitioner, consequently, was that he is not only a regular member of the PCMS Class II but had also rendered rural service for more than four years. Consequently, he was entitled to the payment of full salary for the period during which he was studying.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been inter alia stated that since petitioner had rendered only one year, six months and 19 days' regular service, he was not entitled to the grant of study leave. Still further, the petitioner having filed an affidavit on June 18, 1992, he cannot claim any salary. Accordingly, the respondents maintain that the petitioner is estopped from claiming the salary. It is, consequently, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. With regard to the instructions issued by the Government vide letter dated Jan. 20, 1993, the Additional Director has filed an affidavit that the petitioner had not completed three years' regular service and was, consequently, not entitled to the benefit claimed by him.