Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 212 (MP)

Amogh Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2020-02-10

ATUL SREEDHARAN, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
ORDER 1. Petitioner takes exception to order dated 16.8.2018; whereby,for the reason that the petitioner did not complete the Post Graduate course within stipulated period of three years, the extension hasbeen denied. 2. The facts on record reveal that the petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Health Services, State of Madhya Pradesh, appeared in PostGraduation entrance exam held in the year 2015, for three years Post Graduate Degree Course. Being selected, the petitioner was allotted the Post Graduate Degree Course in Master of Surgery in Obstetrics & Gynecology at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal as per the stipulations contained in the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses (Degree/Diploma) Admission Rules, 2015. The duration of course as per stipulation contained in rule 3(2) of 2015 Rules was three years and was full time course with further stipulation that the student shall not be allowed to do private part time job or any other job during the entire period of study. During the course period, the petitioner was on medical leave from 5.8.2015 to 30.10.2015. Thereafter, for a period from 22.12.2015 till 26.4.2016, the petitioner was on unauthorized leave. That, by order dated 26.4.2016, the petitioner was given the joining subject to repeat the period of unauthorized absence after completion of course and that he will be entitled to appear in the University examination after 6 months from the date of deposit of thesis and after fulfilling the required attendance. The petitioner then entered into certain litigation forming subject matter of Writ Petition No. 798/2017, Writ Petition No. 8533/2016 and Writ Petition No. 17593/2017. The later petition, i.e., W.P.No. 17593/2017 was directed against an order dated 26.7.2017 passed by the State Government. However, the coordinate Bench, construing it to have been passed by the Deputy Secretary, quashed the same by order dated 16.1.2018 and remitted it to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department with the direction to comply the order passed in Writ Petition No.8533/2016. In Writ Petition 8533/2016, the direction was to look into the grievance of the petitioner with an expectation that the authorities will resolve and give quietus to the controversy. As the term of the course was over, the petitioner was released from the GandhiMedical College to his parent department,i.e., Department of Medical Services, on 28.5.2018. In Writ Petition 8533/2016, the direction was to look into the grievance of the petitioner with an expectation that the authorities will resolve and give quietus to the controversy. As the term of the course was over, the petitioner was released from the GandhiMedical College to his parent department,i.e., Department of Medical Services, on 28.5.2018. The petitioner preferred an application on the day of his relieving and sought permission to complete the course by extending term beyond 36 months. The leave was sought on the basis of the communication dated 26.4.2016 referred supra, whereby it was stated that on completion of course the petitioner will have to put in extra period in lieu of the period of unauthorized absence. The State Government,vide impugned order, declined to extend the period of the Post Graduate Course. 3. Sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Rules, 2015 stipulates, “(2) PG courses are full time courses for a period of three years in case of degree and two years in case of diploma from the date of admission. Students shall not be allowed to do private practice, part time job or any other job during the entire period of study.” 4. Furthermore, rule 8 prescribes selection criteria for in-service candidate. 5. That, rule 10 specifically envisages non-extension of course duration. It stipulates: “10. Return to the Department after completing the course : The normal term for PG degree is 36 months and for Post Graduate diploma is 24 months. Candidates completing the tenure will have to go back to their parent department irrespective of their status of the examination whether they have passed or not. No extension to continue the studies shall be granted under any circumstance. It is compulsory for the candidate to undergo the extra training equivalent to the maternity leave period. No stipend/salary will be paid for this duration.” 6. Thus, there is no provision for extension of course duration. Even the State Government is not empowered to relax the condition stipulated in the rules relating to course duration. The contention that the respondents are bound by their letter dated 26.4.2016 and are under obligation to extend the course duration is taken note of and rejected. The said communication has to be read in consonance with the statutory Rules and not de hors. 7. The contention that the respondents are bound by their letter dated 26.4.2016 and are under obligation to extend the course duration is taken note of and rejected. The said communication has to be read in consonance with the statutory Rules and not de hors. 7. The letter/communication referred to states : **dk;kZy; vf/k"Bkrk xka/kh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; Hkksiky Øekad 17048&52@,eŒlhŒ@14@2016 fnukad% 26-04-2016 vkns'k% o"kZ 2015 esa çosf'kr MkWŒ veks?k frokjh] ihŒthŒ Nk=] bulfoZl dksVk] L=h ,oa çlwfr jksx foHkkx ds foHkkx esa fnukad 22-12-2015 ls vufèkÑr vodk'k ij jgus ds dkj.k mDr Nk= dks foHkkx esa TokbZu djus gsrq fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ds v/khu vuqefr çnku dh tkrh gS %& 1- Nk= dks fy, x, vuf/kÑr vodk'k dh vof/k dks fu/kkZfjr ikB~;Øe ds i'pkr~ iqu% fjihV djuh gksxhA 2- Nk= dks Fkhfll tek djus ds 6 eghus i'pkr~ ,oa mifLFkfr dk fu/kkZfjr ekin.M iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ fo'ofo|ky;hu ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh ik=rk gksxhA vf/k"Bkrk] xka/kh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; HkksikyA** 8. Careful reading of the communication reveals that the time spent as unauthorized absence has to be compensated after completion of course duration. It does not say that the course duration gets extended qua the period of unauthorized absence. Thus, the contention that the course duration ought to have been extended in terms of communication dated 26.4.2016, cannot be carried forward. 9. Having thus considered, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought. 10. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.