Ravinder Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others
!
"#$ #%
# &## # #% #
''
% ( %)) *+ ,+ - %.)/ 0)12
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
8'
7/ 0)12
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
, ,-
9 :49/
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
-
57 :4/ 2/
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
','-
5)/ 0)12 2/
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
8 ',
/) :49/
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
,,''
.7/ 0)12
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
'
0)2/2 242/;
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
,,
4/7/ 0)12 2/
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
8
"17 0)12
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7
'
.)/ 0)12 2/
+++))/ 3/4
0 ( 456 2/
+++ 7 #*
<$=
+ " 0
# 0 # 0
!
"
# $
% & !
'
(
)&* !
- + & )! !
)) !%
,
&!! !
- ."
) && !
& ! !
/# )!)* !
,
!
0 $0 1$ 0#
20 2
..
+ .
4 50 .
+ 4.
6 20 0 2( 50 7 2". + :
4 0
; 0 + <.
6 /" ."
8 + 9 . 2. .
4 + .( 4 =0 ( +> 42 4 . 2( 4
" . 50 6
4
. .( +
0 + :
4 !% !
!
.
+ "( + 0. .
+2
2# + 4
.
+ "(
..
2# . .0 50 7 + .
2 44 :
"
+ 2( : 44
' .
4 . +
..
2#
. + 2( : 44
2( 2 0
.
4 . ? 50 +
4 2 0 + 0 #0 + 2( : 44
50 7 2". ? 50
. ( . 2(
@2. 04 0 6
!
"#$%&
"
'()"
"
*"
"!!! !
+ . 2# .
+ "( + 0 2 : 44
44 : 44 .
4 0 +..
#0 +
(
.
4
@2. 04 0 6
0 .
: 44
( (
( 50 2 (
0
(
;.
#04
0 ! The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the reevaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit
8 re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
4.
+ " 2(
@2. 04 0 6
B + 4.
+ 2 0 + +
+. 4 +) "& ,-
. "#- &),-* *
!! .
.
+ " 2( : 44
4 . 0 +. .
4 . .. 2( 0 -
+
2
2 2(
. 50 7 2".
=0
)&* !
4404 " 50 . + :
4 .. 0 : 4 0. .
:
6 ( 4.( #0 2
50 ..+ .
, 0.
0.
2
0 4 : 0 . 0 4 0 +..
#0
.
40 . +..
#0 (
0 2. 4 0.
4 +. " . + + .
:
.
4
6
4404 . 2 ( .
4
0. .
:
@2. 04 0 6
+. / / ' " 01 ,% * ,-
"
0-* "
"
"
*"
"!
. . 2( .
4 .
:
.
+ 4 4.( ;.
#04
0 * The High Court has also noticed that the experience for eligibility notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was not in conformity with the Medical Council of India Regulations. In reply affidavit filed before the High Court, while denying such allegation, it was pleaded that the qualifications and experience, as notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016, was in accordance with the "Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998" (as amended from time to time), framed by the Medical Council of India. It was the specific contention of the respondent authorities that as the RIMS is affiliated to C.A.@S.L.P.(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017 etc. Manipur University, the requirement as prescribed by Medical Council of India for Director of affiliated
hospital should be applied. Such plea is not accepted by the High Court on the ground that there is no proper pleading in this regard. A copy of the Regulations titled as, "Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998" (as amended upto 11th March 2017) issued by the Medical Council of India is placed before us. As notified in the said Regulations, the academic qualifications and experience applicable for the post of Director of medical institutions differ from those applicable for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital.
For the post of Director in a medical institution, apart from the academic qualifications, ten years' experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical college, out of which at least five years should be as Professor in a department, is prescribed. However, for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of the affiliated teaching hospital the required experience is ten years only. It is the specific case of the respondents that the RIMS is an affiliated teaching hospital. In view of such stand of the respondents it cannot be said that the experience for eligibility notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 is contrary to the Regulations of Medical Council of India.
So far as relaxation of upper age limit, as sought by the petitioners in one of the writ petitions is concerned, High Court has directed the competent authority and Executive Council of the Society to consider for providing such relaxation clause. We fail to understand as to how such direction can be C.A.@S.L.P.(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017 etc. given by the High Court for providing a relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement. While it is open for the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right.
employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause.
7
04 -
+
04 2 0 2( 0 0
..
+
.( 4 .
4..
0
.
(
. ( .
. "4>;
?
-
# 0 # 0
" %