news details |
|
|
| Real doctor should be a role model for general public: DB | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
SRINAGAR, Mar 22: A Division Bench of J&K High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Sanjay Dhar while allowing the petition filed by the State of J&K by setting-aside the judgment of writ Court with observations that doctors cannot act like an ordinary man who does not know nitty-gritty of a responsible doctor. Even as on today a doctor is a respectable person in our society than any very important personality. The doctor has traditionally enjoyed a special status in any society, and there are high ethical and legal requirements. It is believed that a "real" doctor should be a role model for the general public not only in the matters of health, but also morality. Thus, a doctor is a responsible citizen in our country. DB observed that this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2018, passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No.724/2012, titled Dr. Abdul Rehman Mir vs. State of J&K & others.
DB after the perusal of the file as also the impugned judgement it shows that the writ petitioner/respondent had been appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the year 1989 and adjusted in District Udhampur. It is contended by the writ petitioner/respondent in his writ petition that he underwent Junior Residency at Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) and was selected for undergoing Post Graduate Course in Surgery at SKIMS and thereafter he was selected as Stipendiary Senior Resident in the discipline of Surgery and its allied specialty in the year 1998. It had also been claimed by the writ petitioner/respondent in his writ petition before the Writ Court that he was recommended for appointment as Registrar in the discipline of Surgery, but, he could not join the tenure post of Registrar as the same was stayed by the Court and it was only after the stay order was vacated that he was relieved from SKIMS, so as to allow him to join as Registrar in the Department of General Surgery at Government Medical College, Srinagar. It had also been contended by the writ petitioner/respondent before the learned Writ Court that he completed three years' Registrarship in the year 2002 and he, accordingly, submitted his joining report on 17.06.2002 and waited for his suitable adjustment, but, a show-cause notice was issued to him, to which he submitted a detailed reply. It was also contended before the learned Writ Court that in terms of Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003, the writ petitioner was allowed to join the department as a "fresh appointee". He accepted and acted upon the said order and joined the department. For the next ten years, the writ petitioner discharged his duty in the department and remained calm and quiet. However, after a decade, the writ petitioner/respondent filed a writ petition (SWP no.724/2012), in which he sought grant of writ of certiorari to quash his Appointment Order (Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003) to the extent of treating him as a fresh appointee. The writ petitioner also prayed for a direction to writ-respondents/appellants to treat the "period of absence" of the writ petitioner, if any, in accordance with the Rules and count the period from the year 1989 to 2003 towards his seniority and give him all the service benefits.
The Writ Court in terms of the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and quashed the Appointment Order of writ petitioner (Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003) to the extent it treated the writ petitioner as a fresh appointee and directed the appellants/writ respondents to count service of the writ petitioner rendered from the year 1989 to 2003 and restore his seniority at an appropriate place by reckoning his previous service and consequent thereto grant all the service benefits to the writ petitioner to which he is entitled to. The appellants/writ respondents are aggrieved of the said judgment and pray for its setting-aside on the grounds taken in the appeal.
DB observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner was given only one year's permission for undergoing the Post-Graduation. On expiry of one year, he did not report to his department/employer, which he was, otherwise, required as a prudent and disciplined employee. Without joining the duties, without entering the office/department, and thereafter without getting his file/case approved for permission from the competent authority to undergo further studies or any other venture he on his own did whatever he would like, including taking the job/assignment of Registrarship. The writ petitioner had not placed on the writ record any permission granted by the respondent-Health Department to demonstrate or suggest that he was allowed to take the job/assignment of Registrarship. This important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Writ Court while passing the impugned judgment.
Division Bench observed that it had noticed that the State Government has in fact conferred a benefit on the writ petitioner by allowing him to rejoin as a fresh appointee when as a matter of fact there were/are MBBS graduates and post-graduates available who are jobless. The writ petition of the respondent/writ petitioner requires to be dismissed on another ground. The laws are made and institutions are created to maintain the moral fabric of the society. The process of the Court of law cannot be allowed to be maneuvered on the basis of pleadings which are false and incorrect. DB further said that Laws neither favour nor disfavour the party, but only stands by truth.
With these observations Division Bench allowed the appeal and the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2018, passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No.724/2012, titled Dr. Abdul Rehman Mir vs. State of J&K & others, is set aside. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner-respondent is dismissed. (JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
