Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1153 (RAJ)

Vijay Goyal v. State

2001-07-26

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
Honble KESHOTE, J.–This petition is presented by the petitioner in the Court on 15.03.2000, and by that time it is not admitted so far. The petitioner has made attempt to get in 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 facie the petitioners 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 there from, I do not find anything in his favour which justifies the claim of the petitioner. The Diploma course in Anesthesia 20.05.2000. The petitioners 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 01, 1998, he cannot be depraved of by his this benefit. (2). I do not find any merit for this claim 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 compete 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 fail 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. (4). The petitioner does not standout par with these doctors who have completed the Diploma course within term of the years. The petitioner has gone on leave, enjoyed the same and now he wants to take the Diploma and stipend both. (3). I do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner on the ground of discrimination. (4). The petitioner does not standout par with these doctors who have completed the Diploma course within term of the years. The petitioner has gone on leave, enjoyed the same and now he wants to take the Diploma and stipend both. Stipend otherwise, is not a right. It is given to provide financial assistance to the student and it does not mean that they may go on leave and remained absent from the course. In that case, they may not be permitted to complete the course for their this long absent. Extra indulgence is granted to the petitioners to complete the course other his for his this absence from the course his name could have struck of. The petitioners has not disclosed in the petition the ground and reason for his this long absence from the course. In absence of the ground and reason for this long absence this claim made by the petitioner of stipend is wholly unjustified, unreasonable and unfair. This claim made by the petitioner in these facts is also not bonafide. However, the petitioner get the Diploma but his claim for stipend is wholly entanable. (5). I do not find any wrong in the approach of the respondents not to give stipend to those candidates of Diploma Course whos term of the course is to be extended because they remain absent during this terms. Those candidates who completed the Diploma within two years and those who have gone on leave cannot be equited and placed on the same footing or at par. (6). This is a wholly mis-conceived and mis-placed petition and the same is dismissed.