petitioner argued that the State’s inaction on his application for NOC, despite a recommendation for it, prejudiced his right to participate in counseling and admission. This was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioner contended that the relevant policies, including the PG/Super Specialty Policy and Resident Doctor Policy, should be read harmoniously. Specifically, the requirement of one year’s field posting was not applicable to those appointed as Senior Residents in new Government Medical Colleges, including the petitioner’s institution.
Analysis revealed that the State’s denial of NOC based on an amended clause of the policy was unjustified, as the provision did not apply to the petitioner’s situation. The denial, therefore, was deemed arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the law. The State’s arguments, referencing a previous case, were deemed inapplicable as they pertained to different policy frameworks.
Concerns about vacancy in the petitioner’s institution upon his admission to the Super Specialty Course were dismissed, as they were deemed incidental to the State’s policies. Petition allowed – Direction to issue NOC to petitioner. (Para 4, 7, and 8)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 345 HP
[-]
Dr. Anupam Sharma Vs. State Of H.P. And Another
CWP No. 8831 of 2023-Decided on 23-11-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-345-HP.pdf
