CWP-24882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Dr. Ajit Nagar Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Science, Rohtak and others CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE 1. the Constitution of India, in essence, seeking quashing of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2 condition to the effect that the petitioner would have to resig held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained in the event of his selection in the P.G. course (hereinafter referred to as question’), while affording requisite ‘No Objection’ as ‘NOC’) 2. lis in hand 24882-2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dr. Ajit Nagar V/s Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Science, Rohtak and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyawan Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 (through Video Conferencing). Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. None for respondent No. 7. ***** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE The writ in hand has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in essence, seeking quashing of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure P condition to the effect that the petitioner would have to resig held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained in the event of his selection in the P.G. course (hereinafter referred to as ), while affording requisite ‘No Objection’ C’) to the petitioner for attending counselling of NEET P.G., 2021 Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the in hand is adumbrated, thus: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24882-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.05.2025 ....Petitioner Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Science, Rohtak ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 (through Video Conferencing). ional Advocate General, Haryana for has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in essence, seeking quashing of the order dated (Annexure P-15) thereby imposing a condition to the effect that the petitioner would have to resign from the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained in the event of his selection in the P.G. course (hereinafter referred to as ‘course in ), while affording requisite ‘No Objection’ (hereinafter referred to to the petitioner for attending counselling of NEET P.G., 2021. essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the (O&M) .05.2025 ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ional Advocate General, Haryana for has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in essence, seeking quashing of the order dated thereby imposing a n from the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained in the event ‘course in (hereinafter referred to . essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 (i) Rohtak (respond Medical Officer. (ii) ‘NBE’) issued notification/information bulletin for NEET in the year 2021. (iii) respondent No.2 which was granted subject to the stipulation that, in the event of his selection the petitioner would have to resign from his post and would not be lien. (iv) stipulation while granting him 23943-2021) before this Court which came to be disposed of by way of following order on 29 24882-2021 (O&M) The petitioner joined the State Institute of Mental Heal Rohtak (respondent No.2-herein) on 23.04.2011 on the substantive post of Medical Officer. The National Board of Examination (hereinafter referred to as ) issued notification/information bulletin for NEET in the year 2021. The petitioner sought for requisite respondent No.2 which was granted, vide communication dated subject to the stipulation that, in the event of his selection the petitioner d have to resign from his post and would not be The petitioner, aggrieved by the imposition of the above stipulation while granting him NOC, filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP 2021) before this Court which came to be disposed of by way of following order on 29.11.2021: “Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the respondents may be directed to consider and take a decision on the representation dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P submitted by the petitioner for grant of No him to participate in Central as well as State Counselling of NEET PG 2021. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the representation dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P considered and decided expeditiously, if already not decided, in accordance with law and decision thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner or NOC shall be issued to him, as the case may. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the petition stands disposed of. It has been stated that tomorrow is the last date for submission of NOC, therefore, a copy of this order be given free of costs to learned 2 The petitioner joined the State Institute of Mental Health, UHS herein) on 23.04.2011 on the substantive post of The National Board of Examination (hereinafter referred to as ) issued notification/information bulletin for NEET-P.G.-2021 courses er sought for requisite NOC from his employer vide communication dated 22.03.2021, subject to the stipulation that, in the event of his selection the petitioner d have to resign from his post and would not be permitted to retain the The petitioner, aggrieved by the imposition of the above filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP 2021) before this Court which came to be disposed of by way of “Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the respondents may be directed to consider and take a decision on the representation dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P- submitted by the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate to enable him to participate in Central as well as State Counselling of NEET PG Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the representation dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-10) of the petitioner shall be and decided expeditiously, if already not decided, in accordance with law and decision thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner or NOC shall be issued to him, as the case may. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents nd 2, the petition stands disposed of. It has been stated that tomorrow is the last date for submission of NOC, therefore, a copy of this order be given free of costs to learned th, UHS herein) on 23.04.2011 on the substantive post of The National Board of Examination (hereinafter referred to as 2021 courses from his employer- .2021, subject to the stipulation that, in the event of his selection the petitioner permitted to retain the The petitioner, aggrieved by the imposition of the above filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP- 2021) before this Court which came to be disposed of by way of the “Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the respondents may be directed to consider and take a -10) Objection Certificate to enable him to participate in Central as well as State Counselling of NEET PG Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the 10) of the petitioner shall be and decided expeditiously, if already not decided, in accordance with law and decision thereon shall be communicated to the In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents It has been stated that tomorrow is the last date for submission of NOC, therefore, a copy of this order be given free of costs to learned AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 (v) speaking order on 30.11.2021 namely the reads thus: (vi) petition in hand (vii) come up for receiving final consideration at the hands of this Court. 24882-2021 (O&M) counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 under the signatures of the Bench Secretary, to enable him to comply with the order.” In compliance of the above, the respondent No.2 passed a speaking order on 30.11.2021 namely the reads thus: “In compliance with the Hon’ble High Court order dated 29.11.2021 in CWP No,.23943 of 2021, the present speaking order is passed after consideration of the representation dated 18.11.2021 given by the petitioner thoroughly and as per the decision of the competent authority, it is intimated that this office has no o if Dr. Ajit Nagar, Medical Officer attends the counseling of NEET PG- 2021 with the stipulation that in the event of selection in PG Course, he would have to resign from the present post held by him and that his lien on the present post will not Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of petition in hand wherein the following order was passed “Notice of the application (CM 25.01.2022. Learned counsel for the the letter dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak has recommended for grant of NOC to the present petitioner. Since NOC was not issued in time, he counseling for post-graduation course. The same situation is arising this year as well. Hence, direction is being given to respondents No.1 and 2 to issue NOC to the petitioner and in the meantime, the petitioner shall provisionally participate in the counseling which is scheduled to be held on 27.12.2021 It is in this factual backdrop that the come up for receiving final consideration at the hands of this Court. 3 counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 under the signatures of the Bench ry, to enable him to comply with the order.” the above, the respondent No.2 passed a speaking order on 30.11.2021 namely the impugned order, relevant whereof In compliance with the Hon’ble High Court order dated .2021 in CWP No,.23943 of 2021, the present speaking order is passed after consideration of the representation dated 18.11.2021 given by the petitioner thoroughly and as per the decision of the competent authority, it is intimated that this office has no objection, if Dr. Ajit Nagar, Medical Officer attends the counseling of NEET 2021 with the stipulation that in the event of selection in PG Course, he would have to resign from the present post held by him and that his lien on the present post will not be retained. ” Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ wherein the following order was passed on 23.12.2021: Notice of the application (CM-19603-CWP-2021) for Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has referred to the letter dated 05.10.2015 (Annexure P-20) wherein the Registrar, Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak has recommended for grant of NOC to the present petitioner. Since NOC was not issued in time, he missed the chance of participating in graduation course. The same situation is arising this year as well. Hence, direction is being given to respondents to the petitioner and in the meantime, the ll provisionally participate in the counseling which is eduled to be held on 27.12.2021.” It is in this factual backdrop that the writ petition in hand come up for receiving final consideration at the hands of this Court. counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 under the signatures of the Bench the above, the respondent No.2 passed a , relevant whereof In compliance with the Hon’ble High Court order dated .2021 in CWP No,.23943 of 2021, the present speaking order is passed after consideration of the representation dated 18.11.2021 given by the petitioner thoroughly and as per the decision of the bjection, if Dr. Ajit Nagar, Medical Officer attends the counseling of NEET 2021 with the stipulation that in the event of selection in PG Course, he would have to resign from the present post held by him writ 2021) for applicant/petitioner has referred to 20) wherein the Registrar, Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak has recommended for grant of NOC to the present petitioner. Since missed the chance of participating in graduation course. The same situation is arising this year as well. Hence, direction is being given to respondents to the petitioner and in the meantime, the ll provisionally participate in the counseling which is has AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 Rival Submiss 3. order has been passed placing reliance upon the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016 which are not applicable to the petitioner since his services are governed by the Haryana Medical Education Department and Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak Regulations from time to time had been working with the respondent No.2, on the substantive Medical Officer therein probation to the satisfaction of the concerned authority(s) and it would, thus, be unjust for the respondent the post for pursuing the urged that the provisions of permission for a medical doctor to pursue higher studies is beneficial not on large and this aspect has been given a impugned order interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2021, the pet completed the petitioner is now not allowed to reap the benefit of his having diligently pursued and completed the hand is entreated for. 4. respondent No.7 24882-2021 (O&M) Rival Submissions Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the has been passed placing reliance upon the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016 which are not applicable to the petitioner since his services are governed by the Haryana Medical Education Department and Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak Regulations from time to time). Learned counsel has fu had been working with the respondent No.2, on the substantive Medical Officer therein since 23.04.2011 and had also completed his probation to the satisfaction of the concerned authority(s) and it would, thus, unjust for the respondent-side to now expect the petitioner to resign from the post for pursuing the course in question. urged that the provisions of permission for a medical doctor to pursue higher studies is beneficial not only to such an aspirant but also to the Society at large and this aspect has been given a impugned order. Learned counsel has further interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2021, the pet completed the course in question and it would be grossly unjust if the petitioner is now not allowed to reap the benefit of his having diligently pursued and completed the course in question On the strength of these submissions is entreated for. Notice of motion was issued wherein the respondents, except respondent No.7-NBE, have entered appearance through counsel. 4 for the petitioner has argued that the impugned has been passed placing reliance upon the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016 which are not applicable to the petitioner since his services are governed by the Haryana Medical Education Department and Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak Regulations (as amended . Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner had been working with the respondent No.2, on the substantive post of since 23.04.2011 and had also completed his probation to the satisfaction of the concerned authority(s) and it would, thus, side to now expect the petitioner to resign from course in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the provisions of permission for a medical doctor to pursue higher ly to such an aspirant but also to the Society at large and this aspect has been given a complete go-by while passing the Learned counsel has further implored that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2021, the petitioner has and it would be grossly unjust if the petitioner is now not allowed to reap the benefit of his having diligently course in question on 27.04.2024. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of petition Notice of motion was issued wherein the respondents, except red appearance through counsel. Repeated impugned has been passed placing reliance upon the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016 which are not applicable to the petitioner since his services are governed by the Haryana Medical Education Department and Pt. B.D. as amended rther iterated that the petitioner post of since 23.04.2011 and had also completed his probation to the satisfaction of the concerned authority(s) and it would, thus, side to now expect the petitioner to resign from Learned counsel has further urged that the provisions of permission for a medical doctor to pursue higher ly to such an aspirant but also to the Society at by while passing the that, pursuant to the itioner has and it would be grossly unjust if the petitioner is now not allowed to reap the benefit of his having diligently petition in Notice of motion was issued wherein the respondents, except Repeated AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 endeavours to serve respondent No.7 respondent No.7 is not a contesting respondent insofar as the claim(s) made in the petition in hand the matter finally on 07.05.2025 and reserved the judgment. 4.1. 4. The relevant stand taken in the reply reads “1. filing of writ petition. The petitioner has also earlier filed the Civil Writ Petition No.23943 of 2021 and has not challenged the order of Competent Authority i.e. Vice Chancellor, which were conveyed vide order dated 22.03.2021 to the petitioner at the time of granted permission to appear in NEET PG stipulation that in the ev resign from the present post held by him and his lien on the present post will not be retained due to acute shortage of of Mental State institute of Mental Health, Rohtak is non teaching institute. The Government also conveyed vide letter dated 19.12.2014 that the staff working /posted /recruited in State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak ma deputed/ utilized any other department/branch of the university. 2. petitioner is employees of State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak, which is under control of Pt . Doctors posted under control of Health department Haryana. The petitioner has also filed the CWP No. 27276 of 2018, in which, he also claimed the ACP benefits equal to HCMS Doctors and same petition been granted to the petitioner yet. for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has iterated that the State Institute of Mental Health is non for pursuing higher studies by them as there was an acute shortage of requisite staff. It is in this background that the petitioner (herein) was 24882-2021 (O&M) endeavours to serve respondent No.7- respondent No.7 is not a contesting respondent insofar as the claim(s) made petition in hand is concerned, therefore, this Court proceeded to hear the matter finally on 07.05.2025 and reserved the judgment. A written reply has been file 4. The relevant stand taken in the reply reads That the petitioner kept mum almost 9 months and never objected prior to filing of writ petition. The petitioner has also earlier filed the Civil Writ Petition No.23943 of 2021 and has not challenged the order of Competent Authority i.e. Vice Chancellor, which were conveyed vide order dated 22.03.2021 to the petitioner at the time of granted permission to appear in NEET PG stipulation that in the event of selection in PG course, he would have to resign from the present post held by him and his lien on the present post will not be retained due to acute shortage of staff. The post sanctioned for State institute of Mental Health, Rohtak are dedicated p State institute of Mental Health, Rohtak is non teaching institute. The Government also conveyed vide letter dated 19.12.2014 that the staff working /posted /recruited in State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak ma deputed/ utilized any other department/branch of the university. That HCMS rule are not applicable in the case of petitioner as the petitioner is employees of State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak, which is under control of Pt .B. D. Sharma, UHS Rohtak and HCMS rules are applicable on Doctors posted under control of Health department Haryana. The petitioner has also filed the CWP No. 27276 of 2018, in which, he also claimed the ACP benefits equal to HCMS Doctors and same petition been granted to the petitioner yet.” Raising submission, in tandem with the reply, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has iterated that the State Institute of Mental Health is non-teaching institute and was not for pursuing higher studies by them as there was an acute shortage of requisite staff. It is in this background that the petitioner (herein) was 5 -NBE have been in vain. Since respondent No.7 is not a contesting respondent insofar as the claim(s) made is concerned, therefore, this Court proceeded to hear the matter finally on 07.05.2025 and reserved the judgment. A written reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The relevant stand taken in the reply reads, thus: That the petitioner kept mum almost 9 months and never objected prior to filing of writ petition. The petitioner has also earlier filed the Civil Writ Petition No.23943 of 2021 and has not challenged the order of Competent Authority i.e. Vice Chancellor, which were conveyed vide order dated 22.03.2021 to the petitioner at the time of granted permission to appear in NEET PG-2021 with the ent of selection in PG course, he would have to resign from the present post held by him and his lien on the present post will not staff. The post sanctioned for State institute Health, Rohtak are dedicated posts in the interest of patients care. The State institute of Mental Health, Rohtak is non teaching institute. The Government also conveyed vide letter dated 19.12.2014 that the staff working /posted /recruited in State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak may not be transferred/ deputed/ utilized any other department/branch of the university. That HCMS rule are not applicable in the case of petitioner as the petitioner is employees of State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak, which is under B. D. Sharma, UHS Rohtak and HCMS rules are applicable on Doctors posted under control of Health department Haryana. The petitioner has also filed the CWP No. 27276 of 2018, in which, he also claimed the ACP benefits equal to HCMS Doctors and same petition is still pending and no relief has Raising submission, in tandem with the reply, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has iterated that the State Institute of Mental teaching institute and was not in a position to spare the staff for pursuing higher studies by them as there was an acute shortage of requisite staff. It is in this background that the petitioner (herein) was Since respondent No.7 is not a contesting respondent insofar as the claim(s) made is concerned, therefore, this Court proceeded to hear d on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to That the petitioner kept mum almost 9 months and never objected prior to filing of writ petition. The petitioner has also earlier filed the Civil Writ Petition No.23943 of 2021 and has not challenged the order of Competent Authority i.e. Vice Chancellor, which were conveyed vide order dated 22.03.2021 to the 2021 with the ent of selection in PG course, he would have to resign from the present post held by him and his lien on the present post will not staff. The post sanctioned for State institute osts in the interest of patients care. The State institute of Mental Health, Rohtak is non teaching institute. The Government also conveyed vide letter dated 19.12.2014 that the staff working /posted y not be transferred/ That HCMS rule are not applicable in the case of petitioner as the petitioner is employees of State Institute of Mental Health Rohtak, which is under B. D. Sharma, UHS Rohtak and HCMS rules are applicable on Doctors posted under control of Health department Haryana. The petitioner has also filed the CWP No. 27276 of 2018, in which, he also claimed the ACP benefits is still pending and no relief has Raising submission, in tandem with the reply, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has iterated that the State Institute of Mental in a position to spare the staff for pursuing higher studies by them as there was an acute shortage of requisite staff. It is in this background that the petitioner (herein) was AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 afforded the selection and his lien would not be retained. 4.2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 prime contesting respondents are respondent Nos.1 to 4 only as t impugned order Health-respondent No.2 (herein). in hand is sought for. 5. and have perused the record. Prime Issue 6. hand is as to whether the stipulation imposed in the effect that the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained, is required to be quashed. Analysis 7. pertinent aspect of the represented passed by this Court, the requisite whereinafter he has no 24882-2021 (O&M) afforded the NOC with the stipulation that he shall have selection and his lien would not be retained. No reply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 prime contesting respondents are respondent Nos.1 to 4 only as t impugned order has been passed by Director of State Institute o respondent No.2 (herein). On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of is sought for. We have heard learned counsel for the rival and have perused the record. Prime Issue The prime issue that arises for cogitation is as to whether the stipulation imposed in the effect that NOC was granted to the petitioner the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained, is required to be quashed. Before proceeding to dilate upon the rival contentions, a pertinent aspect of the lis in hand craves attention at this juncture. It is common ground between represented parties that, in terms of the interim order dated 23.12.2021 passed by this Court, the requisite NOC whereinafter he has not only provisionally participated in the counselling 6 with the stipulation that he shall have to resign in case of selection and his lien would not be retained. No reply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 has urged that the prime contesting respondents are respondent Nos.1 to 4 only as t has been passed by Director of State Institute of Mental On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of writ petition We have heard learned counsel for the rival represented parties The prime issue that arises for cogitation in the writ petition in is as to whether the stipulation imposed in the impugned order, to the was granted to the petitioner subject to his resigning from the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained, is Before proceeding to dilate upon the rival contentions, a attention at this juncture. It is common ground between the learned counsel for the rival in terms of the interim order dated 23.12.2021 NOC was issued to the petitioner t only provisionally participated in the counselling to resign in case of No reply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and urged that the prime contesting respondents are respondent Nos.1 to 4 only as the f Mental writ petition parties writ petition in to the from the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained, is Before proceeding to dilate upon the rival contentions, a learned counsel for the rival in terms of the interim order dated 23.12.2021 was issued to the petitioner t only provisionally participated in the counselling AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 which was scheduled to be held on 27.12.2021, the course in question 27.04.2024. 7.1. judgment passed by this Court in College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and another = 2025: PHHC:012822 24882-2021 (O&M) which was scheduled to be held on 27.12.2021, course in question and has even successfully completed the same on 27.04.2024. At this juncture, it would be apposite judgment passed by this Court in Simran Shakya vs. Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and another = 2025: PHHC:012822-DB, relevant whereof reads as under: “3. When the main writ petition was taken up for h today, it is the common ground of the rival parties that the petitioner has successfully completed the course in question i.e. MBBS. The issue which needs consideration, at this juncture, is as to whether and in what manner a subsequent event (that the petitioner has successfully completed course in question) after the institution of the present writ petition is required to be delved into. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu vs. The Motor a Traders AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1409 “4. xxxxxxxxxxxxx. First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis. a vis. circumstances which come into being Subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our processu to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decrotal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice--subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling (actors or just circumstances. Nor can we contempla this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myraid. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in 7 which was scheduled to be held on 27.12.2021, but was actually admitted to successfully completed the same on At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a Simran Shakya vs. Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and another = 2025: , relevant whereof reads as under: When the main writ petition was taken up for hearing today, it is the common ground of the rival parties that the petitioner has successfully completed the course in question i.e. MBBS. The issue which needs consideration, at this juncture, is as to whether and in what manner the petitioner has successfully completed course in question) after the institution of the present writ petition is required to be delved into. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu vs. The Motor and General Traders AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1409; has held as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxx. First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis. a vis. circumstances which come into being Subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render . Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling (actors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are n, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myraid. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in admitted to successfully completed the same on to refer herein to a Simran Shakya vs. Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and another = 2025: earing today, it is the common ground of the rival parties that the petitioner has successfully completed the course in question i.e. MBBS. The issue which needs consideration, at this juncture, is as to whether and in what manner the petitioner has successfully completed course in question) after the institution of the present writ petition is required to be delved into. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a nd General xxxxxxxxxxxxx. First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis. a vis. circumstances which come into being Subsequent to the commencement of al jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render . Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling te any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are n, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myraid. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 24882-2021 (O&M) accord with the current realities, the court c take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. xxxxxxxxxxxxx” Further, a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’bl case titled as State of Maharashtra vs. Milind AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 393, dealing with somewhat similar set of facts as are in the present case, has held as under: “31. Respondent no. 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985 Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practicing as doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his Admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to respondent no. 1. If any action is taken against respondent no. 1, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. xxxxxxxxxxxxx” 4. As noted hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has successfully completed her MBBS degree course, though on the basis of interim protection afforded to her by this C any fraudulent or misleading practice having been undertaken by the petitioner. The respondent No.2, whose admission was affected on account of the petitioner having been granted admission to the course in question, was also protected by this Court in CWP disputed by the learned rival counsel that she (respondent No.2) has also completed the course-in-question successfully. At this juncture, it will yield no result(s) for anyone if the petitioner’s qu rescinded in anyway. It will be universally futile in case the petitioner is not permitted to reap the benefit of her having completed her MBBS degree course; even the Society would be deprived of the service(s) of a qualified doctor for which scarce resources of a public institution have been utilized. It would be a waste of the training, time, efforts of the faculty and other resources in the medical institution; as well as it will adversely affect the life of the to undertake the profession for which she has been declared qualified. It will bring no gain rather will have no effect at all, to the respondent No.2; if the petitioner is denied her qualification. In essence, it wou 8 accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. xxxxxxxxxxxxx” Further, a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a State of Maharashtra vs. Milind AIR 2001 SUPREME , dealing with somewhat similar set of facts as are in the Respondent no. 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985- Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practicing as doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his Admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to respondent no. 1. If any action is taken against respondent no. 1, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. xxxxxxxxxxxxx” As noted hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has successfully completed her MBBS degree course, though on the basis of interim protection afforded to her by this Court. There is no allegation of any fraudulent or misleading practice having been undertaken by the petitioner. The respondent No.2, whose admission was affected on account of the petitioner having been granted admission to the course in o protected by this Court in CWP-18187-2016 & it is not disputed by the learned rival counsel that she (respondent No.2) has also question successfully. At this juncture, it will yield no result(s) for anyone if the petitioner’s qualification/admission is rescinded in anyway. It will be universally futile in case the petitioner is not permitted to reap the benefit of her having completed her MBBS degree course; even the Society would be deprived of the service(s) of a tor for which scarce resources of a public-funded medical institution have been utilized. It would be a waste of the training, time, efforts of the faculty and other resources in the medical institution; as well as it will adversely affect the life of the petitioner, if she were not allowed to undertake the profession for which she has been declared qualified. It will bring no gain rather will have no effect at all, to the respondent No.2; if the petitioner is denied her qualification. In essence, it would be an, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides e Supreme Court in a State of Maharashtra vs. Milind AIR 2001 SUPREME , dealing with somewhat similar set of facts as are in the - 86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practicing as doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his Admission. for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to respondent no. 1. If any action is taken against respondent no. 1, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. xxxxxxxxxxxxx” As noted hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has successfully completed her MBBS degree course, though on the basis of ourt. There is no allegation of any fraudulent or misleading practice having been undertaken by the petitioner. The respondent No.2, whose admission was affected on account of the petitioner having been granted admission to the course in 2016 & it is not disputed by the learned rival counsel that she (respondent No.2) has also question successfully. At this juncture, it will alification/admission is rescinded in anyway. It will be universally futile in case the petitioner is not permitted to reap the benefit of her having completed her MBBS degree course; even the Society would be deprived of the service(s) of a funded medical institution have been utilized. It would be a waste of the training, time, efforts of the faculty and other resources in the medical institution; as well petitioner, if she were not allowed to undertake the profession for which she has been declared qualified. It will bring no gain rather will have no effect at all, to the respondent No.2; ld be AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 7.2. Punjab and others = 2025: PHHC:022697 24882-2021 (O&M) unproductive for the Society at large to deny medical practice based on her qualification to the petitioner.” Further, in a judgment titled as Punjab and others = 2025: PHHC:022697 “In general terms; Equity is a notion of fairness, impartiality and even-handed dealing. Osborne considered equity as fairness and related it with natural justice. For Aristotle, equity is a correction of the law, where the law is defective owing to its unive from the Roman term "aequitas", suggesting the idea of equality, equilibrium, and proportion. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court, as enshrined under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not confined to the rigid contours of legalistic adjudication but extends to the realm of equity, ensuring that the justice is dispensed in its truest and fairest form. The court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, does not merely function as a mechanical arb also as a custodian of justice, obligated to prevent manifest injustice, even in the cases, where strict legal norms may appear adverse to the petitioner. The doctrine of equity, which serves to temper the rigidity of the law, mandates judicial intervention to prevent an inequitable outcome. Equity, while operating within the framework of the law, does not permit legal provisions to be enforced in a manner that results in undue hardship, oppression, or disproportionate consequen is to uphold fairness, not to be applied mechanically to defeat substantial justice. Where a party, albeit initially ineligible, has acted in good faith and without any fraudulent intent, and where no overriding public inter is adversely affected, equity demands that the individual should not be subjected to disproportionate hardship solely on the basis of a technical defect at the inception. Furthermore, legal principles must be applied in a manner that align with the objectives of justice and fairness. The writ Court, as the guardian of justice, must ensure that legal procedures are not used as instruments of rigidity, but rather as vehicles for advancing fairness and mitigating undue hardship. Thus, in circumstances wher litigant has, in good faith, undertaken significant commitments based on a reasonable expectation of progression, equity mandates a balanced approach that upholds the substantive ends of justice while avoiding an unduly harsh application of the law. J where a litigant has acted in good faith and where allowing strict 9 unproductive for the Society at large to deny medical practice based on her qualification to the petitioner.” Further, in a judgment titled as Jasmeen Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others = 2025: PHHC:022697, this Court has held as under: general terms; Equity is a notion of fairness, impartiality and handed dealing. Osborne considered equity as fairness and related it with natural justice. For Aristotle, equity is a correction of the law, where the law is defective owing to its universality. The term "Equity" originates from the Roman term "aequitas", suggesting the idea of equality, equilibrium, and proportion. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court, as enshrined under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not he rigid contours of legalistic adjudication but extends to the realm of equity, ensuring that the justice is dispensed in its truest and fairest form. The court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, does not merely function as a mechanical arbiter of legal principles but also as a custodian of justice, obligated to prevent manifest injustice, even in the cases, where strict legal norms may appear adverse to the The doctrine of equity, which serves to temper the rigidity of the mandates judicial intervention to prevent an inequitable outcome. Equity, while operating within the framework of the law, does not permit legal provisions to be enforced in a manner that results in undue hardship, oppression, or disproportionate consequences. The purpose of legal norms is to uphold fairness, not to be applied mechanically to defeat substantial justice. Where a party, albeit initially ineligible, has acted in good faith and without any fraudulent intent, and where no overriding public inter is adversely affected, equity demands that the individual should not be subjected to disproportionate hardship solely on the basis of a technical defect at the inception. Furthermore, legal principles must be applied in a ectives of justice and fairness. The writ Court, as the guardian of justice, must ensure that legal procedures are not used as instruments of rigidity, but rather as vehicles for advancing fairness and mitigating undue hardship. Thus, in circumstances wher litigant has, in good faith, undertaken significant commitments based on a reasonable expectation of progression, equity mandates a balanced approach that upholds the substantive ends of justice while avoiding an unduly harsh application of the law. Judicial intervention is warranted where a litigant has acted in good faith and where allowing strict unproductive for the Society at large to deny medical practice based on Jasmeen Kaur vs. State of general terms; Equity is a notion of fairness, impartiality and handed dealing. Osborne considered equity as fairness and related it with natural justice. For Aristotle, equity is a correction of the law, where rsality. The term "Equity" originates from the Roman term "aequitas", suggesting the idea of equality, equilibrium, and proportion. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court, as enshrined under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not he rigid contours of legalistic adjudication but extends to the realm of equity, ensuring that the justice is dispensed in its truest and fairest form. The court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, iter of legal principles but also as a custodian of justice, obligated to prevent manifest injustice, even in the cases, where strict legal norms may appear adverse to the The doctrine of equity, which serves to temper the rigidity of the mandates judicial intervention to prevent an inequitable outcome. Equity, while operating within the framework of the law, does not permit legal provisions to be enforced in a manner that results in undue hardship, ces. The purpose of legal norms is to uphold fairness, not to be applied mechanically to defeat substantial justice. Where a party, albeit initially ineligible, has acted in good faith and without any fraudulent intent, and where no overriding public interest is adversely affected, equity demands that the individual should not be subjected to disproportionate hardship solely on the basis of a technical defect at the inception. Furthermore, legal principles must be applied in a ectives of justice and fairness. The writ Court, as the guardian of justice, must ensure that legal procedures are not used as instruments of rigidity, but rather as vehicles for advancing fairness and mitigating undue hardship. Thus, in circumstances where a litigant has, in good faith, undertaken significant commitments based on a reasonable expectation of progression, equity mandates a balanced approach that upholds the substantive ends of justice while avoiding an udicial intervention is warranted where a litigant has acted in good faith and where allowing strict AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 7.3. 23.12.2021 earlier passed by this Court; in terms whereof the petitioner has not only course in question passed the unjust as also inequitable to annul or inva stage. dicta of a judgment passed Punjab = 24882-2021 (O&M) compliance with technical requirements would result in unwarranted hardship. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) applies herein with complete vigour, reinforcing the salutary principle that the writ court should not allow its process to be employed in a manner that defeats substantive justice. A rigid application of rules should not undermine the broader princ justice. The doctrine of proportionality, another cornerstone of judicial review, necessitates that the adverse impact on the petitioner must be weighed against the broader objectives of the regulatory framework. Ergo, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, the writ Court must not render decision(s) that results in punitive detriment to the litigant, especially when no fraud, misrepresentation, or malafide intent is attributable to such litigant. The writ Court must desist from view that subverts substantive justice. Instead, a holistic approach, ensuring that equity and good conscience prevail, must be the guiding beacon in the adjudication of such matters. The writ jurisdiction must, thus, be wielded as an instrument of justice rather than an inflexible adjudicatory tool, bound by pedantic legal formalities.” Considering that, pursuant to the interim order dated 23.12.2021 earlier passed by this Court; in terms whereof the petitioner has not only provisionally participated in the counselling for admission to the course in question but was even admitted thereto and has successfully passed the course in question; this Court finds that it would be manifestly unjust as also inequitable to annul or inva In adopting this course, this of a judgment passed by this Court in Punjab = 2025:PHHC:062706-DB; relevant whereof “In the hallowed halls of justice, it is a cardinal principle that no litigant ought to suffer a detriment owing to the vicissitudes of judicial delay. While the machinery of justice is designed to function with diligence and dispatch, practical realities 10 compliance with technical requirements would result in unwarranted hardship. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court o one) applies herein with complete vigour, reinforcing the salutary principle that the writ court should not allow its process to be employed in a manner that defeats substantive justice. A rigid application of rules should not undermine the broader principles of fairness and justice. The doctrine of proportionality, another cornerstone of judicial review, necessitates that the adverse impact on the petitioner must be weighed against the broader objectives of the regulatory framework. Ergo, of its equitable jurisdiction, the writ Court must not render decision(s) that results in punitive detriment to the litigant, especially when no fraud, misrepresentation, or malafide intent is attributable to such litigant. The writ Court must desist from taking a hyper-technical view that subverts substantive justice. Instead, a holistic approach, ensuring that equity and good conscience prevail, must be the guiding beacon in the adjudication of such matters. The writ jurisdiction must, s an instrument of justice rather than an inflexible adjudicatory tool, bound by pedantic legal formalities.” Considering that, pursuant to the interim order dated 23.12.2021 earlier passed by this Court; in terms whereof the petitioner has provisionally participated in the counselling for admission to the but was even admitted thereto and has successfully ; this Court finds that it would be manifestly unjust as also inequitable to annul or invalidate such an admission, at this In adopting this course, this Court places reliance upon the by this Court in Harsimran Kaur vs. State of relevant whereof reads as under:- In the hallowed halls of justice, it is a cardinal principle that no litigant ought to suffer a detriment owing to the vicissitudes of judicial delay. While the machinery of justice is designed to function with diligence and dispatch, practical realities –– such as an inundated docket, compliance with technical requirements would result in unwarranted hardship. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court o one) applies herein with complete vigour, reinforcing the salutary principle that the writ court should not allow its process to be employed in a manner that defeats substantive justice. A rigid application iples of fairness and justice. The doctrine of proportionality, another cornerstone of judicial review, necessitates that the adverse impact on the petitioner must be weighed against the broader objectives of the regulatory framework. Ergo, of its equitable jurisdiction, the writ Court must not render decision(s) that results in punitive detriment to the litigant, especially when no fraud, misrepresentation, or malafide intent is attributable to technical view that subverts substantive justice. Instead, a holistic approach, ensuring that equity and good conscience prevail, must be the guiding beacon in the adjudication of such matters. The writ jurisdiction must, s an instrument of justice rather than an inflexible Considering that, pursuant to the interim order dated 23.12.2021 earlier passed by this Court; in terms whereof the petitioner has provisionally participated in the counselling for admission to the but was even admitted thereto and has successfully ; this Court finds that it would be manifestly at this ourt places reliance upon the Harsimran Kaur vs. State of In the hallowed halls of justice, it is a cardinal principle that no litigant ought to suffer a detriment owing to the vicissitudes of judicial delay. While the machinery of justice is designed to function with such as an inundated docket, AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 24882-2021 (O&M) administrative constraints, or systemic inertia impede the timely adjudication of disputes. In such instances, where the delay in the resolution of the lis the Court must tread with circumspection to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done. It is here that the enduring legal maxim, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit importance. This venerable precept enshrines no party should suffer because of the fault or delay of the Court. Where judicial proceedings have been protracted not by the inaction or negligence of a litigant, but rather due to institutional delays beyond the party’s control, the judiciary ought to adopt a corrective, rather than punitive stance. To put it differently, for instance, an interim relief is granted by a writ Court in favour of a litigant injunction, or the temporary enjoyment of a right or entitlement pending final adjudication. If, owing to systemic delays, the final determination of the matter is deferred over an inordinate length of time, the litigant must not, upon disposal, be divested of the benefit that ha accrued during the interregnum. To do so would tantamount to a grave miscarriage of justice and an unwarranted forfeiture of rights, lawfully bestowed during the pendency of the matter. The writ Courts are not merely passive arbiters but active guardia duty-bound to obviate the possibility of a litigant being rendered remediless on account of procedural inertia. To adopt any contrary view would embolden a jurisprudence of attrition, wherein the mere passage of time, albeit unintended, could operate to the prejudice of one who has approached the Court in good faith and in pursuit of legitimate relief. It would be wholly repugnant to the foundational tenets of equity and fair play, if the delay, not solely occasioned by the judicial process as well, were to result in forfeiture of rights or cause irreparable detriment. The Court, therefore, bears a solemn duty to ensure that interim protections –– justice –– do not lapse into otiosity or become illusory by reason of judicial delay. The dicta of the enunciation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Zaid Sheikh (supra) endorses this fundamental canon of our jurisprudence. This is especially imperative relief has matured into a de facto 11 administrative constraints, or systemic inertia –– may, on occasion, impede the timely adjudication of disputes. In such instances, where the lis is attributable to no fault of the litigant, he Court must tread with circumspection to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done. It is here that the enduring legal actus curiae neminem gravabit assumes paramount importance. This venerable precept enshrines the sacrosanct doctrine that no party should suffer because of the fault or delay of the Court. Where judicial proceedings have been protracted not by the inaction or negligence of a litigant, but rather due to institutional delays beyond the trol, the judiciary ought to adopt a corrective, rather than To put it differently, for instance, an interim relief is granted by a writ Court in favour of a litigant –– be it in the form of a stay order, an enjoyment of a right or entitlement pending final adjudication. If, owing to systemic delays, the final determination of the matter is deferred over an inordinate length of time, the litigant must not, upon disposal, be divested of the benefit that ha accrued during the interregnum. To do so would tantamount to a grave miscarriage of justice and an unwarranted forfeiture of rights, lawfully bestowed during the pendency of the matter. The writ Courts are not merely passive arbiters but active guardian of equitable dispensation. It is bound to obviate the possibility of a litigant being rendered remediless on account of procedural inertia. To adopt any contrary view would embolden a jurisprudence of attrition, wherein the mere passage of unintended, could operate to the prejudice of one who has approached the Court in good faith and in pursuit of legitimate relief. It would be wholly repugnant to the foundational tenets of equity and fair play, if the delay, not solely occasioned by the parties, but attributable to the judicial process as well, were to result in forfeiture of rights or cause irreparable detriment. The Court, therefore, bears a solemn duty to –– granted to preserve the substratum of do not lapse into otiosity or become illusory by reason of of the enunciation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) endorses this fundamental canon of our jurisprudence. This is especially imperative in cases, where such interim de facto entitlement, the withdrawal of which by may, on occasion, impede the timely adjudication of disputes. In such instances, where the is attributable to no fault of the litigant, he Court must tread with circumspection to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done. It is here that the enduring legal assumes paramount the sacrosanct doctrine that no party should suffer because of the fault or delay of the Court. Where judicial proceedings have been protracted not by the inaction or negligence of a litigant, but rather due to institutional delays beyond the trol, the judiciary ought to adopt a corrective, rather than To put it differently, for instance, an interim relief is granted by a be it in the form of a stay order, an enjoyment of a right or entitlement –– pending final adjudication. If, owing to systemic delays, the final determination of the matter is deferred over an inordinate length of time, the litigant must not, upon disposal, be divested of the benefit that had accrued during the interregnum. To do so would tantamount to a grave miscarriage of justice and an unwarranted forfeiture of rights, lawfully bestowed during the pendency of the matter. The writ Courts are not n of equitable dispensation. It is bound to obviate the possibility of a litigant being rendered remediless on account of procedural inertia. To adopt any contrary view would embolden a jurisprudence of attrition, wherein the mere passage of unintended, could operate to the prejudice of one who has approached the Court in good faith and in pursuit of legitimate relief. It would be wholly repugnant to the foundational tenets of equity and fair the parties, but attributable to the judicial process as well, were to result in forfeiture of rights or cause irreparable detriment. The Court, therefore, bears a solemn duty to granted to preserve the substratum of do not lapse into otiosity or become illusory by reason of of the enunciation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) endorses this fundamental canon of our in cases, where such interim entitlement, the withdrawal of which by AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 8. respondent No.2 had no objection to the petitioner attending the counselling of the course in question selection in the the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained. Much water has flown since the substantial factual development(s) has taken place since then especially petitioner having passed the met with approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads, thus: we deem it appropriate to quash the No.2 to pass a fresh speaking order account the subsequent factual development(s). Decision 9. is disposed off in the following t (i) question, 24882-2021 (O&M) way of the final order would be akin to stripping armour from a soldier mid-battle, after having led him onto the battle field under its shield. A perusal of the impugned order respondent No.2 had no objection to the petitioner attending the counselling course in question but with the stipulation that in the event of selection in the course in question, the pet the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained. Much water has flown since the impugned order substantial factual development(s) has taken place since then especially petitioner having passed the course in question. met with approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads, thus: “A court of equity must so act, within the permissible limi prevent injustice. ‘Equity is not past the ag to do justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience. Courts can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to further the cause of justice. Within the available range and forging new tools in the said purpose, if necessary to chisel hard edges of the law.” Ergo, in the peculiar factual we deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order No.2 to pass a fresh speaking order, in accordance with law, account the subsequent factual development(s). In view of the preceding ratiocination, the is disposed off in the following terms: The admission of the petitioner and his passing the question, pursuant to the interim order dated 23.12.2021 earlier passed by 12 way of the final order would be akin to stripping armour from a soldier battle, after having led him onto the battle field under its shield. impugned order, indubitably, reflects that respondent No.2 had no objection to the petitioner attending the counselling but with the stipulation that in the event of , the petitioner would have to resign from the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained. impugned order passed on 30.11.2021 and substantial factual development(s) has taken place since then especially course in question. An age-old adage, which met with approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads, thus: “A court of equity must so act, within the permissible limits so as to Equity is not past the age of child bearing’ and an effort to do justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience. Courts can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to further the cause of justice. e range and forging new tools in the said purpose, if necessary to chisel hard edges of the law.” in the peculiar factual matrix of the writ petition in hand, impugned order & direct the respondent in accordance with law, after taking into account the subsequent factual development(s). In view of the preceding ratiocination, the writ petition in hand The admission of the petitioner and his passing the course in dated 23.12.2021 earlier passed by way of the final order would be akin to stripping armour from a soldier reflects that respondent No.2 had no objection to the petitioner attending the counselling but with the stipulation that in the event of itioner would have to resign from the post held by him and that his lien on the said post will not be retained. passed on 30.11.2021 and the adage, which ts so as to and an effort to do justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience. Courts can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to further the cause of justice. e range and forging new tools in the said purpose, if in hand, the respondent taking into writ petition in hand course in dated 23.12.2021 earlier passed by AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24882 this Court, is directed to be regularized; t 30.11.2021 directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, days from receipt/production of certified copy of this judgment, affording requisite opportunity of hearing to the petitio account the factual development(s) which has taken place pursuant to 30.11.2021 i.e. day when the (ii) considered as precedent as the same has been passed in its individualistic, peculiar and accentuating factual milieu. (iii) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE May 15, 2025 Ajay 24882-2021 (O&M) this Court, is directed to be regularized; t 30.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2 is set directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, days from receipt/production of certified copy of this judgment, affording requisite opportunity of hearing to the petitio the entire factual gamut of the lis factual development(s) which has taken place pursuant to 30.11.2021 i.e. day when the impugned order was passed. The ratio decidendi of the considered as precedent as the same has been passed in its individualistic, peculiar and accentuating factual milieu. No order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 13 this Court, is directed to be regularized; the impugned order dated respondent No.2 is set-aside & the respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, within 45 days from receipt/production of certified copy of this judgment, after affording requisite opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by taking into lis in hand including the substantial factual development(s) which has taken place pursuant to 30.11.2021 i.e. was passed. of the writ petition in hand shall not be considered as precedent as the same has been passed in its individualistic, peculiar and accentuating factual milieu. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes Yes dated aside & the respondent No.2 is within 45 after by taking into substantial factual development(s) which has taken place pursuant to 30.11.2021 i.e. the shall not be considered as precedent as the same has been passed in its individualistic, CHIEF JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.15 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document