Chandigarh February 18:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that the affected doctors needed to be heard before a final decision was taken in the medical officers’ selection case.
The High Court also allowed four Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) members, Anil Sarin, DS Mahal, Brig D S Grewal (retd) and Ravinder Kaur, to be impleaded as parties to the pending petition on the alleged rip-off on the selection of 312 doctors.
Virtually directing day-to-day proceedings in the matter from May 16, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Augustine George Masih also ordered the publication of a notice in newspapers for informing the doctors on the pendency of the case against the selections. With this, the Bench paved the way for their being heard in the case.
The much-hyped vigilance commission report, virtually indicting the members, did find a mention in the proceedings. But no orders were passed in the open court for taking it on record. Taking note of the contention that the report was “leaked” to the media, the Bench simply observed that it was doing its job. The case will now come up for hearing on May 16.
As the case came up before the Bench, Bar-at-law Himmat Singh Shergill, appearing for PPSC chairman Sanjit Kumar Sinha, complained that the copies of the report had not been supplied. He added that the report contained half truth, and “half truths are dangerous”. The Bench verbally observed in the open court that the report so far had not been taken on record. As such, so far there was no question of supplying the copies of the report.
The Bench added the contentions raised in the bunch of petitions boiled down to three issued. Elaborating, the Bench asserted in the open court that the first one, raised by the chairman, was about an independent inquiry by the CBI or a retired Judge of the High Court. Noting the contentions raised in the petition, the Bench observed that it had been argued that the vigilance inquiry has been ordered by Punjab Chief Minister to bring discredit to the commission with a view to replace its members. The report has been filed but order to take it on record is yet to be passed.
The other two issued were taking the inquiry report on record and demand for quashing the selections made by unsuccessful candidates. The Bench asserted though in some of the cases a number of doctors have been made parties, all are not arrayed as respondents. As the issue of the selection is to be decided, a notice will have to be issued. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Gogoi directed that newspaper publication be made by the petitioners on the pendency of the petition so that appointed doctors could participate. The publication is to be made in three newspapers, including a vernacular daily, with a wide circulation.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that the affected doctors needed to be heard before a final decision was taken in the medical officers’ selection case.
The High Court also allowed four Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) members, Anil Sarin, DS Mahal, Brig D S Grewal (retd) and Ravinder Kaur, to be impleaded as parties to the pending petition on the alleged rip-off on the selection of 312 doctors.
Virtually directing day-to-day proceedings in the matter from May 16, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Augustine George Masih also ordered the publication of a notice in newspapers for informing the doctors on the pendency of the case against the selections. With this, the Bench paved the way for their being heard in the case.
The much-hyped vigilance commission report, virtually indicting the members, did find a mention in the proceedings. But no orders were passed in the open court for taking it on record. Taking note of the contention that the report was “leaked” to the media, the Bench simply observed that it was doing its job. The case will now come up for hearing on May 16.
As the case came up before the Bench, Bar-at-law Himmat Singh Shergill, appearing for PPSC chairman Sanjit Kumar Sinha, complained that the copies of the report had not been supplied. He added that the report contained half truth, and “half truths are dangerous”. The Bench verbally observed in the open court that the report so far had not been taken on record. As such, so far there was no question of supplying the copies of the report.
The Bench added the contentions raised in the bunch of petitions boiled down to three issued. Elaborating, the Bench asserted in the open court that the first one, raised by the chairman, was about an independent inquiry by the CBI or a retired Judge of the High Court. Noting the contentions raised in the petition, the Bench observed that it had been argued that the vigilance inquiry has been ordered by Punjab Chief Minister to bring discredit to the commission with a view to replace its members. The report has been filed but order to take it on record is yet to be passed.
The other two issued were taking the inquiry report on record and demand for quashing the selections made by unsuccessful candidates. The Bench asserted though in some of the cases a number of doctors have been made parties, all are not arrayed as respondents. As the issue of the selection is to be decided, a notice will have to be issued. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Gogoi directed that newspaper publication be made by the petitioners on the pendency of the petition so that appointed doctors could participate. The publication is to be made in three newspapers, including a vernacular daily, with a wide circulation.
