CWP No. 7200 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.08.2011 1. CWP No. 7200 of 2011(O&M) Dr. Jagan Jyot ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2. CWP No. 8219 of 2011 Dr. Parul Gupta and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 3. CWP No. 8480 of 2011 Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 4. CWP No. 7668 of 2011 Dr. Sheetal Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 5. CWP No. 13053 of 2011 Dr. Nitin Verma and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No. 7200 of 2011 [2] Present : Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 13053 of 2011. Mr. Tarun Vir Lehal, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 8219 of 2011. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 8480 & 7200 of 2011. Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 7668 of 2011. Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No. 7 in CWP No. 13053 of 2011. Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 to 8 in CWP No. 7200 of 2011 Mr. Tarun Vir Lehal, Advocate, for respondent No. 8 in CWP No. 13053 of 2011. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) These writ petitions involve common questions of law hence are being disposed of by a common order. For brevity, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 7200 of 2011. The petitioner possesses academic qualification of B.D.S. & M.D.S. She was appointed as a Medical Officer (Dental) in the Health and Family Welfare Department i.e. Punjab Dental Services erstwhile (Class-II) vide order dated 14.09.1994 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner thereafter was sent to the Department of Medical Education & Research as a part of the Teaching Faculty and posted in the Government Dental College & Hospital, Amritsar vide order dated 16.01.2003. (Annexure P-6). While serving continuing in the Govt. Dental College, the petitioner was considered and recommended CWP No. 7200 of 2011 [3] promotion to the post of Lecturer-cum-Assistant Professor by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 01.07.2008 and pursuant thereto she was ordered to be promoted vide order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P-9). The said order, however, was directed to be kept in abeyance till further orders vide the impugned order dated 25.7.2008 (Annexure P-10). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It appears that the petitioner's promotion order was not given effect at the instance of some Demonstrators who had been meanwhile appointed in the Government Dental College on the recommendations made by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The representationist(s) claimed that the petitioner or other Medical Officers of the Department of Health & Family Welfare have no claim on the posts in the Department of Medical Education & Research and they being mere deputationist(s) are liable to be repatriated. In other words, the Demonstrators though appointed later on claimed preferential right on the promotional posts. The petitioner apprehending denial of promotion and repatriation to the parent department has approached this Court. Her case is that the Medical Officers can also be brought to serve in the Medical Dental Colleges in public interest and it so permitted under the Rules/policy. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner or other Medical Officers who have spent substantial part of their service career in the Medical/Dental colleges as a members of the Teaching Faculty must be repatriated to accommodate CWP No. 7200 of 2011 [4] the new entrants or will it be in the larger public interest to retain some of them (if not all) for imparting the experienced professional education. Such like questions ordinarily fall within the domain of the Executive and ought to be resolved by the State Government keeping in view, as noticed earlier, Institutional and public interest. One of the appropriate recourse in such like cases can be the blending of old and new entrants. It will minimize stagnation for the new entrants and at the same time shall provide qualitative professional education to the further Doctors. In other words, all the stake holders should take a holistic view in the matter. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, without expressing any final opinion, with the following directions:- i) The State Government shall address the grievances of the petitioners and other similarly placed medical officers who have spent sufficient number of years as members of the Teaching Faculty in Medical Dental College(s) and see as to how many of them can be adjusted in public interest as a part of teaching faculty. The adjustment can be made keeping in view that no stagnation is caused to the directly recruit members of the teaching faculty. ii)The adjustment in the Medical/Dental colleges would necessarily follow the consequential service benefits including promotion as was decided earlier and thereafter only the orders like dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure P-9) can be given effect. CWP No. 7200 of 2011 [5] iii)The State Government shall constitute a Committee of five experts including (i) the Director, Health and Family Welfare and (ii) the Director, Medical Education & Research as its members and the appropriate decision on directions (i) and (ii) above shall be taken only after considering the view point of the Expert Committee. iv) The Committee shall submit its report to the State Government within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. v) Till then, the petitioner or other similarly placed medical officers shall not be repatriated, however, their promotions shall also be kept in abeyance. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) 29.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'