High Court rejects plea for preference to Covid warriors - ECAS Punjab

High Court rejects plea for preference to Covid warriors

Share This

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear it has full sympathy with Covid warriors, but directions could not be issued to the government to give preference, reservation or additional marks to doctors working in the Covid care centres. It amounted to asking the court to "propel in unchartered ocean of government policy making".

Legislature sole repository of power

  • The HC said legislature and its delegate were sole repositories of power to decide what policy should be pursued
  • Therefore, court couldn't interference, unless a provision impugned before it could be said to suffer from legal infirmity

Dr Parampreet Kaur and two other doctors had moved the High Court for directing the State of Punjab and other respondents to give additional marks or the benefit to doctors working in Covid care centres while appointing medical officers (general) pursuant to an advertisement/recruitment notice.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal observed the petitioners' precise grievance was they were Covid warriors and had stood by the government in difficult time when most of the medical staff either resigned or refused to carry out duties in the centres. As such, they should be given preference/reservation/additional marks while carrying out the recruitment.

Justice Kshetarpal also took note of the contentions that several state governments, private universities and institutions had taken a decision to grant either reservation or preference to Covid warriors and the doctors could be included under the classification "war heroes" defined in the Punjab Civil Service (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules.

Justice Kshetarpal added the aspect of policy making had been dealt with in a recent Supreme Court judgment in "Federation Haj PTOs of India versus the Union of India".

The judgment, among other things, said the legislature and its delegate were the sole repositories of power to decide what policy should be pursued. There was no scope for interference by the court, unless the particular provision impugned before it could be said to suffer from legal infirmity.

Disposing of the petition, Justice Kshetarpal asserted: "This court finds that it would not be appropriate under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ petition as prayed for by the petitioners. However, it is left open to the petitioners to make a representation to the government in this regard which shall be considered sympathetically."



from The Tribune https://ift.tt/34pq8LO

No comments:

Post a Comment

Pages