Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of LPAs No. 983 and 995 of 2011 as both the appeals arise from the common order of learned Single Judge and involve common questions.
(2.) THE appellants are serving the State of Haryana as members of Haryana Civil Medical Services. They were candidates for admissions to the PG courses conducted by respondent No. 2 University. Under a policy of the State of Haryana dated 5.12.2008 which was referred to in the prospectus of the University relating to higher studies for the Government doctors such doctors were to be treated on duty with full pay and allowances while undergoing PG studies subject to condition that they have rendered three years regular service out of which two years service is in rural area. The procedure laid down for availing the said benefit was to seek NOC from the employer apart from other conditions specified therein. As per prospectus issued for admissions to the PG courses in the respondent University for the entrance examination, 2011, out of total 145 seats, 29 seats are reserved for the HCMS. Vide memo dated 31.3.2011, the Government of Haryana revised its policy dated 5.12.2008 restricting the benefit of full pay and allowances and sponsorship against reserved seats in the said quota to doctors who had completed five years of regular satisfactory service out of which three years service should be in District/Sub Divisional hospitals and two years in rural area institutions. However, doctors who had completed three years service were also eligible to apply for PG courses in open seats but they were not entitled to salary during the period of higher education nor to sponsorship against reserved seats. Aggrieved by the revised policy, writ petition was filed in this Court mainly on the ground that the revised policy decision dated 31.3.2011 could not be made applicable to the session 2011 as the petitioners had already applied as per the old policy in January, 2011 for which entrance exam had been held on 2.3.2011 and result thereof declared on 3.3.2011. The revised policy was not a part of prospectus while unrevised policy was a part of prospectus and conditions of prospectus could not be changed for the current admissions.
(3.) THE stand in the writ petition was opposed by filing reply on behalf of the Health Department of the State by submitting that there was no change in the prospectus conditions. Reservation for HCMS continued to be as mentioned in the prospectus. The prospectus itself mentioned that NOC conditions of the State of Haryana will be as per latest instructions issued from time to time. Accordingly, NOCs were issued as per instructions applicable at the time of issuance of NOCs. There was only change in the policy of sponsorship of Government doctors for PG courses and of allowing them to undergo PG studies while getting full pay. The State Government was at liberty to change its policy for sponsorship for permitting doctors in its employment and allowing them to undergo PG studies while getting full salary. The experience of the State was that doctors in employment who availed of the benefit of PG studies while getting full salary and availing sponsorship did not serve the Government, which defeated the object for which sponsorship and other benefits were allowed. Change of policy did not result in violation of any right of the petitioners. The benefit under the policy was now being given to doctors with more experience. However, those with lessor service could still get admission without sponsorship in open category without getting pay as per conditions of revised policy. NOC had not been issued before issuance of the revised policy and thus issue of sponsorship was still pending consideration before the State and change of policy was before issuance of NOC.;