- (1.) These two connected Letters Patent Appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of a judgment and order dated December 14,1993, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6375 of 1993.
(2.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 895 of 1993 is filed by the appellant Dr. Dalbir Singh Bakshi (hereinafter referred to as 'Dr. Bakshi'), who was the second respondent in the writ petition filed by Dr. Himmat Singh Aneja, the writ petitioner-first respondent in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'Dr. Aneja'). Letters Patent Appeal No. 903 of 1993 is preferred by the State of Punjab, the first respondent in the said writ petition.
(3.) The learned Single Judge has very succinctly and briefly set out relevant facts in his judgment and it is not necessary to reproduce all these facts m detail in this judgment. We may, however, reproduce some necessary facts in order to appreciate the rival contentions raised before us. For the purpose of this judgment, we may refer to the facts set out in the compilation of Letters Patent Appeal No. 895 of 1993.;