Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 515 (UTT)

Suresh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-27

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. As both these writ petitions relate to a common issue, therefore, both the petitions are being heard and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, however, the facts of WPSS No. 293 of 2016 are being taken into consideration for the disposal of these matters. 2. The petitioners before this Court have done their Diploma in Panchkarm from the Uttarakhand Open University through a distance mode, which is called by the University as “Distance Education Mode”. However, since they were not being registered with Bhartiya Chakitsha Parishad, Uttarakhand, therefore, the Bhartiya Chakitsha Parishad is creating certain problems to them, as their course was not recognized by it. Earlier some of the candidates like present petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court being WPMS No. 1866 of 2013 (along with connected matters), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2013. The operative portion of the same reads as under:- “It is directed that the Principal Secretary, Health, Government of Uttarakhand, in consultation with the Controller of the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Dehradun shall take a decision on the validity of the Course being done by the petitioners and, in case, they come to a conclusion that the curriculum, activities and the practical training of the petitioners is up to the standards set by them, then they may take a decision of granting such an approval to the petitioners, and subsequently register them with the Board if other such students from other sources are being registered. In the event they come to the conclusion that the Course done by the petitioners is not up to the standard, they may still explore possibilities of conducting a fresh course for a duration which they may deem fit, so that, the petitioners become eligible or become up to the mark. However, if ultimately they come to the conclusion that this cannot be done and under no circumstance a validity can be given to the Course of the petitioners, they may do so by recording reasons. In that event, the petitioners would be at liberty to take a recourse or any suitable action against the Open University in accordance with law, including a recourse for compensation or for the loss which they have suffered. In that event, the petitioners would be at liberty to take a recourse or any suitable action against the Open University in accordance with law, including a recourse for compensation or for the loss which they have suffered. While taking a decision, the Principal Secretary and the Controller shall give a hearing to the representative of Open University as well as one or two representatives of the petitioners, so that they may place their case before them. Let a decision be taken within a period of 8 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. There has been no order as to costs.” 3. In pursuance of the order (referred above) passed by this Court, the Government took a decision vide its order dated 28.03.2014 and after giving certain guidelines the Government directed such petitioners to do a “Bridge Course” who have done their diploma in Panchkarma like present petitioners. All the petitioners have done their Bridge Course and thereafter duly registered with Bhartiya Chakitsha Parishad. Now the petitioners filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to consider the main diploma obtained by petitioners from year 2010 to 2012 in the instant selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 08.01.2016 for the purpose of counting seniority and marks obtained by them in the said course. II. To issue such other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. III. To award cost to the writ petition to the petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the diploma in Bridge Course was done by the petitioners in the year 2015, however, they claim that they are liable to be given preference between 2010 to 2012 (when they have done their Diploma in Panchkarma), as it will make them junior to such Panchkarma Assistant, who have done their diploma in the year 2013-14. Moreover, the course, in fact, done by the petitioners is not even recognized in the State. It was only done in pursuance of the relief granted by this Court to them earlier. Consequently, the course done by the petitioners was actually not recognized. Moreover, the course, in fact, done by the petitioners is not even recognized in the State. It was only done in pursuance of the relief granted by this Court to them earlier. Consequently, the course done by the petitioners was actually not recognized. Considering that the Open University was a State University a lenient view was taken and the petitioners were given a chance to get a valid course after asking them to complete a “Bridge Course”. This has been done and the petitioners now hold a valid certificate of a course. 5. There is no merit in the case of the petitioners as far as their claim of seniority is concerned. This is a diploma, which has been done by the petitioners in pursuance of the Court’s order, which has now attained to its finality. It would be not proper to give any kind of relief, sought by the petitioners, in the present writ petitions at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.