Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 125 (JK)

Sana v. State of J&K

2019-03-13

GITA MITTAL, TASHI RABSTAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed an order dated 26.02.2019 in SWP No. 290/2019. 2. It is the contention of the appellant that since she was already pursuing PG course in SKIMS, Soura when she came to be appointed as a Medical Officer vide Government Order dated 16.01.2019 and thereafter as Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Medical College, Anantnag which appointment she has joined on 24.01.2019, she should be permitted to pursue her PG course by treating her to be on deputation. The appellant had claimed entitlement to the same benefits as available to the regularly appointed employees on deputation to the other services/cadre. This prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.02.2019 disposing of writ petition being SWP No. 290/2019 holding that the writ petitioner was not entitled to proceed on deputation in view of the applicable rules inasmuch as she had not completed her period of probation having been recently appointed. The learned Single Judge has adverted to SRO 274 of 2013 dated 30.05.2013 issued by the Government which pertains to grant of Study Leave and the decision dated 05.04.2016 also taken by the respondents that in-service medical officers who were selected for PG Course before 30.05.2013 would be treated as on deputation and that thereafter, all such cases are to be considered under Study Leave Rules vide SRO 274 of 2013 dated 30.05.2013. 3. The learned Single Judge has held that if eligible in terms of SRO 274 of 2013, the appellant was free to apply for Study Leave. It has further been observed that the Government in appropriate cases was empowered to mitigate the hardships and to relax the aforesaid three years prescription. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has adverted to para 6 of the Minutes of Meeting held in the office of Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department on 30.05.2017. 4. In this background, the learned Single Judge has held that in case the petitioner intends to continue her employment as a Casualty Medical Officer, she was under obligation to perform her duties on the post. However, she was entitled to approach the respondents for grant of Study Leave in terms of SRO 274 of 2013 as also the decision taken in the meeting held on 30.05.2017. 5. However, she was entitled to approach the respondents for grant of Study Leave in terms of SRO 274 of 2013 as also the decision taken in the meeting held on 30.05.2017. 5. The learned Single Judge has directed that in case the appellant decides to pursue the course and applies for Study Leave, the respondents would consider the same on the touchstone of the Study Leave Rules promulgated vide SRO 274 of 2013 dated 30.05.2013 keeping in view the decision dated 30.05.2017, provided the same is still applicable. 6. We may note that Mr. Jan, learned Sr. counsel has drawn our attention to the stipulation in para 6 of the decision dated 30.05.2017 to the effect that if in service doctors are allowed to pursue the PG Courses, the same could be with a condition that the periods spent by them on PG Courses shall be treated as “leave whatever kind due or dies-non as the case may be”. Needless to say that the respondents would keep this stipulation in para 6 of the decision dated 30.05.2017 in mind while so processing the application of the appellant as and when the same is made by her. 7. No interference in the impugned order dated 26.02.2019 is warranted. This appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.