Herojit Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

N. Kotiswar Singh, J

Heard Mr. L. Sanjoy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC for the Union respondents.

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction for quashing the Signal dated 13-11-2017 by which the request of the petitioner, Senior Dental Surgeon for granting permission to appear in the P.G entrance examination was not acceded due to alleged not fulfilment of the mandatory eligibility criteria viz., 3 years field service/ 5 years Govt. service/ upper age criteria/ ACR below benchmark/ adverse remarks/ not clear from vigilance angle/ prescribed quote etc. It has been submitted that the petitioner had been already granted permission by the competent authority for the said P.G entrance examination as clearly evident from the Signal dated 16-01-2015,by which the petitioner and other surgeons have been permitted to appear in the said P.G entrance examination, 2015..

It has been submitted by the petitioner that however, the petitioner could not appear in the said 2015 P.G entrance examination as grant of permission to appear in the said exam was communicated to him late. Accordingly, he appeared in the P.G entrance examination conducted in 2018.

It has been submitted by Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC that the petitioner did not fulfil all the eligibility criteria. He submits that as evident from Annexure - C/5 signal dated 09-01-2018, the petitioner has been informed that the scrutiny of APAR of last 5 years i.e., 2011-12 to 2015-16 of the officer reveals that he has been awarded below benchmark grading with adverse remarks by Tech Rep. Officer in the APAR for the year 2013-14 and as such, he was not found fit for grant of permission to appear in the P.G entrance examination, 2018.

Mr. L. Sanjoy, learned counsel however, vehemently contests the aforesaid position taken by the respondent authorities according to him, there is no prejudicial adverse remarks. He submits that the aforesaid adverse remarks is only for a period of 5 months and thereafter, these would have no effect. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid adverse remarks will cease to exist after a period of five months and accordingly the said adverse remarks cannot disqualify the petitioner for appearing in the P.G entrance examination.

Mr. L. Sanjoy, learned counsel submits that as mentioned in the standing order, in cases where CRs are written in parts, ACR/APAR grading awarded for longer period is to be taken into account for the entire period of a particular year and as such, if the longer period for the year 2013-14 is to be considered, it cannot be said that there is any adverse remarks. He further submits that in respect of six months from 01-09-2013 to 31-03-2014 which is the remaining longer period, the petitioner has been graded as "Very Good". Accordingly, he submits that it cannot be said that the petitioner is not eligible.

Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC submits that he may be granted sometime to file detailed affidavit to demonstrate that the petitioner is not otherwise eligible.

On the other hand, what this Court has noted and also as submitted by the petitioner that the counselling has already started and if the petitioner who has been found to have passed in the said P.G entrance examination is not allowed to take part in the counselling, he may be deprived of the opportunity to undertake the P.G course.

The petitioner submits that he undertakes to abide by the decision of this Court in case he is found to be disqualified under the Rules and in the event, he will give up such P.G course.

Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner in the meantime may be allowed to take part in the counselling and also may be permitted to take admission if selected for the same. However, this will be subject to any subsequent order that may be passed by this Court after considering the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents.

Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC submits that he will file the affidavit-in-opposition by 21st March, 2018 and all issues including maintainability of the petition will also be permitted to be raised.

Accordingly, list the matter again on 21st March, 2018.

Copies of this order may be furnished to all the learned counsel for all the parties.