Allahabad High Court
Dr. Gauri Shanker Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8494
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11103 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dr. Gauri Shanker Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manushresth Misra,Ravindra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Manushresth Misra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ram Pratap Singh Chaube, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is the Medical Officer having been selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. and joined on 08.03.2010. It has further been stated that the petitioner desire to do post graduation for medicine and consequently moved an application to the State Government for being granted a no objection certificate so that he can be given the benefit of being in-house candidate and also he could be granted weightage in the said selection. The said examination was to be held on 11.08.2024 and the petitioner was issued an admit card and in the said examination he had obtained 51.99 percentile marks with the rank of 104838.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Director General (Training), Government of U.P. whereby they have refused to grant the no objection certificate to the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was inflicted with a punishment by means of order dated 14.08.2023 where he has been awarded the censure entry along with stoppage of two increments and as the petitioner has been inflicted with the major penalty, the respondents have declined to issue a no objection certificate.
4. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.10.2024 stating that the incident on the basis of which the punishment has been awarded relates to year 2012 and even if the punishment order has been passed on 14.08.2023 still the same relate back to the year of the incident and substantial length of period having been lapsed since the date of incident, the said punishment could not have been considered by the respondents while declining to issue a no objection certificate.
5. He further submits that there is no co-relation between awarding of a punishment and grant of no objection certificate which may enable the petitioner to be granted weightage in the NEET PG (MD/MS and DNB) 2024 Examination inasmuch as any additional qualification obtained by the petitioner would be utilized by the further benefit of the public.
6. Per contra learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition.
7. He submits that the entire procedure for giving weightage to the inhouse candidate and Medical Officer in U.P. Medical Examination is governed by Government Order dated 10.02.2022. According to the said Government Order, it has been provided any person to be eligible for being granted a no objection certificate should be a person against whom no departmental or vigilance inquiry or any criminal case is pending.
8. Apart from the above, such a candidate should have completed his probation and should have been confirmed in service which should be a regular and satisfactory service. He submits that the petitioner having been inflicted with the major penalty cannot fall into the category of a person with satisfactory service and consequently there is no infirmity in the impugned order declining the petitioner for being granted a no objection certificate.
9. He further submits that the judgment and the legal proposition relied upon by the petitioner stating that the said entry would loose its significance and efficacy after 5 years from the date of the incident is relatable only in cases where a minor penalty has been inflicted where any censure entry or minor punishment would loose its efficacy after a period of 5 years and such a punishment would not disentitle such a government servant for being considered for grant of other service benefits including promotion.
10. He submits that there is no such government order pertaining to the major penalty where the said penalty would operate against the petitioner during his service tenure. Finally he submits that the petitioner having been inflicted by the major punishment cannot be said to have satisfactorily performed his service and consequently supported the impugned order.
11. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
12. The petitioner who is a medical officer of the U.P. Provincial Medical Services had applied for a no objection certificate as per the Government Order dated 10.02.2022 for appearing as a departmental candidate and also being granted weightage in the NEET PG (MD/MS and DNB) Examination 2024, the respondents have rejected application of the petitioner by impugned order dated 09.10.2024 assigning the reason that the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment during departmental proceedings by order dated 14.08.2023 wherein it was inflicted with a punishment of censure along with stoppage of two increments. Stoppage of two increments is the major penalty and consequently it is for the aforesaid reasons the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioner does not fulfill conditions as laid down by the Government Order dated 10.02.2022 inasmuch as the petitioner had not rendered satisfactory service and hence rejected the same.
13. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the said punishment order relates to the misconduct pertaining to the year 2012 and any punishment awarded would relate back to the year of incident and accordingly relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Pramod Kumar Tiwari (Writ A No. 1766/2023). It is noticed that in the case relied by the petitioner a censure entry was awarded to the delinquent government officer on 10.04.2017 due to which he was considered by the departmental promotion committee was rejected on three occasions.
14. According to the said judgment, the Court was of the view that the said punishment of censure entry would relate back to the date of the year for which it was granted and would loose its efficacy after 5 years after which the government servant can be considered for grant of other service benefits ignoring the said punishment order.
15. It is further noticed that in this regard the court had relied upon various government orders which prescribed for the period during which the minor penalty shall be operative. This Court had also considered the effect of government order dated 06.04.1999 and 30.06.1993 for giving to the said opinion.
16. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the case therein inasmuch as in the present case the petitioner has been awarded a manor penalty. There is no government order and none could be placed by the petitioner which could demonstrate that a similar treatment has to be meted out even when a major penalty has been inflicted upon the government servant. Accordingly, this Court does not find any provision which may demonstrate that a major penalty would loose its efficacy after a particular length of time. In absence of any such government order once a manor penalty is awarded then the same would be duly considered throughout service tenure of such government servant till it is varied or set aside by the higher authority or forum.
17. Accordingly, this Court finds that the reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of no objection certificate is not arbitrary inasmuch as the same is based upon the punishment given to the petitioner during departmental proceedings. There is no dispute that the said punishment order is still continuing and has not been varied by any higher forum. In the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that the services of the petitioner has been satisfactory.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no scope for interference of this Court under Article 226/227of Constitution of India. The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 10.2.2025
Ravi/
