VIJAY GOYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is presented by the petitioner in the Court on 15th March, 2000, and by that time it is not admitted so far. The petitioner has made attempt to get it admitted so many times but he failed to get it admitted. From the order sheets of this case. It is also borne out that prima fade the petitioner's case was not accepted by the Court and that may be the reason that time was granted to the petitioner from time to time by the Courts to place the relevant rules for his entitlement for stipend. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner is on the record and therefrom, I do not find anything in his favour which justifies the claim of the petitioner. The Diploma course in Anesthesia has already been completed by the petitioner on 20th May, 2000. The petitioner's claim is that he is entitled to stipend for full terms of two years merely on the ground that he remained on leave from October 23, 1997 to June 1, 1998, he cannot be deprived of by this benefit.

(2.) I do not find any merit for this claims of the petitioners. The petitioner remained on leave during the period aforesaid. Out of term of 2 years of course, the petitioner has remained on leave for a long period and though he may be permitted to complete the Diploma, but the benefit of stipend could not have been given. Underline object and purpose of this scheme is that within prescribed term of course the same is to be completed, so the doctors would be available to serve the people. It is true that full period of two years terms is to be completed by a doctor but if it fails to complete the course beyond this initial period of two years, he is not entitled for the stipend. He may be permitted to complete the course but without benefits of the stipend. The doctor who complete the course within two years and those who complete beyond two years do not constitute, on class.

(3.) I do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner on the ground of discrimination.