Do not insist on bank guarantee, property mortgage: HC to state

CHANDIGARH: Acting on a petition filed by in-service doctors seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses in government, government-aided and private medical colleges along with dental educational institutes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the state not to insist on bank guarantee or mortgaging of an immovable property worth Rs 50 lakh.

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 14

Acting on a petition filed by in-service doctors seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses in government, government-aided and private medical colleges along with dental educational institutes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the state not to insist on bank guarantee or mortgaging of an immovable property worth Rs 50 lakh.

The direction by the Division Bench of Mahesh Grover and Justice Rajbir Sehrawat came on the petition filed against Haryana and other respondents by Dr Satbir Singh and 21 other petitioner doctors through their counsel Dharmender Singh Rawat.

They are seeking quashing of impugned condition in the no objection certificate (NOC) issued to in-house doctors for admission to MD, MS, PG diploma and MDS courses for academic session 2018-19.

The NOC submitted by the petitioners had been imposed upon them as per the new policy dated March 19 for in-service candidates. A clause in the policy prescribed furnishing of bank guarantee or mortgaging of an immovable property of an amount equivalent to Rs 50 lakh.

The petitioners added that they would be governed by the old policy dated December 23, 2011, as the new policy was not applicable when they applied for NEET-PG 2018 in October 2017.

Taking up the matter, the Bench asserted even though the petitioners had challenged the applicability of the earlier policy, their counsel during the course of hearing contended he would restrict his case only to the limited aspect of the clause in the new policy, which prescribed bank guarantee or mortgage of an immovable property.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, the Bench asserted it was of the opinion that there was a debatable issue to be determined in the present proceedings.

Issuing notice of motion to the state, Director-General Health Services, and other respondents for July third week, the Bench said: “In the meantime, the petitioners will furnish the bond, but the condition of bank guarantee or mortgage of an immovable property as per the new policy shall not be insisted upon by the respondents.”