AAKANKSHA SAWHNEY

Advocate
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
# 1728, Sector-33-D
Chandigarh.
Mobile No. 9888764179
Dated: 29.10.2020.

To

The Director Principal,

Government Medical College and Hospital,
Sector-32, Chandigarh.

Subject:- Filing of Written statement to the Civil Writ

Petition No. 10618 of 2020 – titled as Dr.
Mandeep Singh Versus Union Territory of
Chandigarh and another in the Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
____________

Next date:- 06.11.2020.

Undersigned has prepared the Written statement to the

above mentioned Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh and the same is forwarded to you for the approval
and signatures.

Please return the same to the undersigned after getting

the same signed with rubber stamp before the next date fixed,
so that the same may be filed before the Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh at the earliest.

(Aakanksha Sawhney)
Advocate
Additional Standing Counsel,
U.T. Chandigarh.

Encl: As above.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

In CWP No. 10618 of 2020.

Dr. Mandeep Singh.

….Petitioner.
Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and another.

…Respondents.

Written statement to the above mentioned writ

petition filed through Shri__________________,

Director-cum-Principal of Government Medical

College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh on

behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 .

___________

Most Respectfully showeth:-

Parawise replies on merits:-

1. That the instant writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner who has been denied admission in MD/MS Course

2020 at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32,

Chandigarh. At the outset, It is most humbly submitted that

since the matter pertains to taking admission in MD/MS

Course, 2020, therefore, the Director-cum-Principal,

Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32,

Chandigarh is competent to file the present written statement on

behalf of both the respondents.

2. That the reply to the contents of Para No. 2 of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner is as under:-

A. That the contents of Para No. 2 (A) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply.

B. That the contents of Para No. 2 (B) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are denied for want

of knowledge.

C. That the contents of Para No. 2 (C) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are also denied for

want of knowledge.

D. That the contents of Para No. 2 (D) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are denied for want

of knowledge.

E. That the contents of Para No. 2 (E) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are denied for want

of knowledge.

F. That the contents of Para No. 2 (F) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply.

G. That the contents of Para No. 2 (G) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply.

H. That the contents of Para No. 2 (H) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply.

I. That the contents of Para No. 2 (I) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply.

J. That the contents of Para No. 2 (J) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply.

K. That in reply to the contents of Para No. 2 (K), it is

most respectfully submitted that certain general

conditions were laid down in the admission

prospectus which was issued for admission in

MD/MS Course of the session 2020. As per

Clause PG-10, following general conditions will

be applicable on all candidates whether selected

against All India Quota seats or UT Chandigarh

Pool Seats or Leftover seats filled by other than

U.T. Chandigarh Pool candidates:-

i) The selected candidates will have to undergo

medical examination by the constituted

Medical Board at the time of their admission

 to the course, Candidates found medically fit

shall be granted admission;

ii) The candidates who do not appear before the

Medical Board or are found medically unfit

shall not be allowed to join the course.

On 16.07.2020, petitioner appeared before the Medical

Board for medical examination to assess his fitness. It is

further noteworthy to mention here that the petitioner had

made a submission that his medical examination was

conducted by all except Orthopaedic examination,

therefore, he was examined by an Orthopaedic Specialist

on 16.07.2020 and unfortunately, upon examination, his

disability was identified by the Orthopaedic Specialist.

Now with a view to assess his disability vis a vis Medical

Council of India guidelines, the Orthopaedic Specialist

recommended that again another round of fitness

examination would have to be conducted .

It is most respectfully submitted that the answering

Respondent Department with great compassion , thought

it appropriate to get his case re-examined by a Medical

Board before arriving at any definitive conclusion for

holding him “Unfit” for admission in MD/MS Course of

the session 2020.

Medical Superintendent of the GMCH, Sector-32,

Chandigarh, (who is the Chairman of the Medical Board

so constituted to conduct the medical examination of all

provisionally selected candidates for admission in

MD.MS Course ) constituted a special Medical Board on

16.07.2020 consisting of three specialists from the

department of Orthopaedics, namely, Dr. P.N. Gupta,

Professor, Dr. Rohit Jindal, Professor and Dr. Gaurav

Chander, Assistant Professor . Dr. Mandeep Singh (i.e.

petitioner) was instructed to appear before the Special

Medical Board alongwith X-ray Report of his left hand

on 17.07.2020 as the disability was pertaining to

Locomotor System. The said Medical Board after re-

examination of the petitioner submitted its report as

under:-

“Dr. Mandeep Singh was examined on 17.07.2020

by a Medical Board consisting of Dr. P.N. Gupta,

Dr. Rohit Jindal and Dr. Gaurav Chander duly

constituted by the Medical Superintendent of

GMCH, Chandigarh. The findings of the medical

board are as under:-

- Congenital absence of left index finger at the

level of proximal phalynx and middle finger at

proximal inter pharyngeal joint and has

deformity of ring and little fingers.

- The Medical Board went through the guidelines

of MCI (Medical Council of India) dated

 13.05.2019 provided by the Academic Branch

of GMCH and as per the guidelines of the

Gazette of India Extraordinary (Part-III, Sec.

4), Appendix H-1, the relevant clause of Serial

No. 1 is reproduced below:-

“Both hands intact, with intact sensation,

sufficient strength and range of motion are

essential to be considered eligible for medical

course is applicable.”

Hence, as per guidelines provided by the Medical

Council of India (MCI) , the candidate does not fulfil the

guidelines for medical course as mentioned above

It is further submitted that medical courses at

Govt. Medical College including admissions, curriculum

etc. are regulated by Medical Council of India guidelines

in this regard and GMCH 32 is bound to follow all

regulations/instructions notified/issued by MCI. Any

deviation would result in severe consequences which

would adversely affect the academic functioning of

GMCH 32 including admissions to various under

graduate/Post graduate courses which in turn would

jeopardize the career of so many aspiring students. It is

further noteworthy to mention that MCI being the

regulatory authority ,can deny recognition to the college

or to a particular course which would be pre-judicial to

 the functioning of the college and against the interest of

the college at large,

L. That the contents of Para No. 2 (L) of the writ petition

filed by the petitioner are matter of record and hence

need no reply.

M. That the contents of Para No. 2 (M) of the writ petition

filed by the petitioner are matter of record and hence

need no reply.

N. That the contents of Para No. 2 (N) of the writ petition

filed by the petitioner are matter of record and hence

need no reply.

O. That in reply to the contents of Para No. 2 (O) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the

petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.07.2020 to

the Medical Superintendent of GMCH, Sector-32,

Chandigarh, who is also a Chairman of the Medical

Board, on 17.07.2020 to review the recommendations of

the Special Medical Board. Said representation was with

a request to review the recommendations of the Special

Medical Board.

Thereafter, another round of examination was conducted

upon petitioner’s request , only with a view to

compassionately reconsider his case. however within the

parameters and guidelines issued by the Medical Council

of India in this regard. Thereafter, petitioner was

examined by the Disability Board comprising of Dr. Priti

Arun, Professor, Dr. Ashwani Soni, Assistant Professor

nd Dr. Rajeev Kansay, Assistant Professor and after

examination to the petitioner, said Disability Board has

submitted its report on 20.07.2020, which is reproduced

hereunder:-

“There is disability of the petitioner is 23%

permanent in relation to left upper limb.

The candidate has not applied under PWD

quota, however, candidate was examined by

Medical Examination Board as per

guidelines issued by MCI regarding

admission of students with “Specified

disabilities” under RPWD Act. The

candidate should have been examined by

Medical Board as per guidelines of Govt.

Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32,

Chandigarh for physical fitness of the

candidate for seeking admission for medical

course.
Thereafter, Director-Principal of the Government

Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh constituted a

Larger Medical Board comprising of Prof. Sudhir Kumar

Garg, HOD, Orthopaedics, Prof. Dasari Harish,

HOD/Forensic Medicine, Dr. P.N. Gupta,

Professor/Orthopedics, Dr. Priti Arun,

Professor/Psychiatry and Dr. Rohit Jindal,

Professor/Orthopaedics to review the medical fitness

opinion of the petitioner Dr. Mandeep Singh. After

examination to the petitioner, said Larger Medical Board

submitted its report as under:-

“This is in ref. to the above mentioned subject. A

large Medical Board has been constituted vide

Endst. No. GMCH-TA-III (PF)-2020/28986-87

dated 24.07.2020 to review the medical fitness

opinion in respect of Dr. Mandeep Singh, who has

been provisionally allotted MD/Forensic Medicine

Seat during 2nd round of State Quota Counselling

at GMCH, Chandigarh on the ground that he was

declared medically “Fit” by the Medical Board of

GMCH, Chandigarh at the time of joining MBBS

Course at this institute. Meeting was held under

the Chairmanship of Prof. Sudhir Kumar Garg,

HOD/Orthopaedics in Room No. D-331, Block-D,

 Department of Orthopaedics, GMCH, Chandigarh.

Following attended the said meeting:-

i) Prof. Dasari Harish, HOD/Forensic

Medicine,

ii) Dr. P.N. Gupta, Professor/Ortjhopedics,

iii) Dr. Priti Arun, Professor/Psychiatry.

iv) Dr. Rohit Jindal, Professor/Orthopaedics

The Chairman has also requested Prof. Priti Arun,

Chairperson of Disability Cell vide letter dated

25.07.2020 to provide a copy of rules for assessment of

disability for the admission to medical course.

Committee also studied the NEET PG Brochure and

format of Disability Certificate prescribed by MCI. Dr.

Mandeep Singh, petitioner also appeared before the

Medical Board. Detailed history was taken and physical

examination was carried out. In addition x-ray of left

hand was also examined. Following are the findings of

the Medical Board:-

- Dr. Mandeep Singh (Petitioner) has deformity in the left

hand since birth. On examination, it was found that there

is congenital absence of left index finger at the level of

proximal phalanx, absence of middle finger at proximal

inter pharyngeal (interphalangeal) joint and deformity of

ring and little fingers. X-rays confirmed the findings and

further revealed that there was proximal phalanx, absence

of middle finger at the level of proximal inter-phalangeal

joint and absence of distal phalanges in both ring and

letter finger.

- Dr. Mandeep Singh also submitted a letter issued by

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of

India bearing No. V.11012/10/2018-MEP dated

12.03.2010 alongwith amended regulations and judgment

of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in “Harshil Maheshbhai

Upadhyay Versus State of Gujarat” dated 23.07.2019.

The Medical Board examined the documents

provided by the Academic Brnch, Chairman Disability

Cell, Dr. Mandeep Singh and discussed the issue at

length. Following are the observations of the Board:-

i) There was no quota for persons with

disability in GMCH in admission year 1997

as per the draft prospectus provided by the

Academic Branch.

ii) Clause-6 of Admissions of Draft Prospectus

for admission year 1997 states that

“Candidates must have been declared

physically and mentally fit by the Medical

Board constituted by the Director Principal

prior to their admission to the Government

Medical College, Chandigarh.” Guidelines

 of MCI/GMCH for assessing medical fitness

for admission year 1997 are not available

with the academic branch. However, in the

medical examination form of Dr. Mandeep

Singh, conducted at the time of admission in

MBB course, there is no

mention/documentation of his disability by

the concerned specialist. It just mentions

“NAD” meaning “No Abnormality

Detected”.

iii) This Medical Board is of the opinion that

once during medical examination, a

candidate is found to be suffering from a

disability, the disability rules as notified by

MCI would become applicable to assess

his/her fitness to pursue a medical course

irrespective of the fact whether candidate

has applied against seats reserved for

persons with disability (PwD) or open merit

category. Board members were of the

opinion that nature or the extent of disability

which renders a person with disability

(PwD) unfit the pursuing of medical course,

also makes an open merit candidate unfit

also.
iv) Medical Board examined in detail the

Gazette Notification No. MCI-34(41)/2018-

Med/170045 dated 05.02.2019 with Gazette

of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3,

sub-section (ii), Ministry of Social Justice

and Empowerment, Medical Board is of the

opinion that Appendix “H” Clause 1, Sub

Clause-“f” i.e. other such as Amputtion,

Poliomyeelitis, etc. which is further clarified

s below:-

***Both hands intact, with intact

sensation, sufficient strength and

range of motion are essential to be

considered eligible for medical course

is applicable. Hence, as per the above

mentioned regulations of MCI, the

candidate does not fulfill the criteria

for fitness of admission in the medical

course. As far as the judgment of

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is

concerned in “Harshill Maheshbhai

Upadhyay Versus State of Gujart”

dated 23.07.2019, legal opinion may

be sought.”
 Medical Board constituted by GMCH, Chandigarh has

followed MCI regulations for admission in medical courses for

persons with disability (PwD) notified by the Board of

Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India dated

04.02.2019, No. MCI-34(41)/2018-Med./170045 published in

Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-III, Section-4, dated

05.02.2019 to assess whether petitioner is Fit/Unfit for

admission in medical course. These guidelines regarding

admission of students with “Specified Disabilities” under the

Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to

admission in MBBS has been extended to admission in MD/MS

courses vide Ref. No. U12021/02/2019/05-MEC dated

15.02.2019.

Relevant parts of these regulations are reproduced

hereunder:-

S. Disability Type of Specified Disability Range

No. Type Disabiliti disability
s

A copy of the report of the Medical Board is annexed

herewith as Annexure R-1.

3. That in reply to the contents of Para No. 3 of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that it is wrong to

suggest that the Medical Board constituted by the respondents’

hospital failed to consider the guidelines for admission of

students with “Specified Disabilities” under the Right for

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Medical Boards relied on

the MCI’s regulations for admission in medical courses for

persons with disability (PwD) notified by the Board of

Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India dated

04.02.2019 bearing No. MCI-34(41)/2018-Med/170045 and

notification dated 13.05.2019 bearing No. MCI-

34(41)/2019/112862. Both the notifications encompass the

Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with “Specified

Disabilities” as reproduced below:-

(i) These regulations may be called the “Graduate

Medical Education Regulations (Amendment),

2019.”

(ii) In the “Regulations on Graduate Medical

Education, 1997”. In Appendix “H”-Guidelines

regarding admission of students with “Specified

Disabilities” under the Rights of persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in

MBBS shall be substituted with Appendix-“H-1”.

Further, MCI regulations for admission in medical

courses for persons with disability (PwD) notified by the Board

of Governors in superession of Medical Council of India dated

04.02.2019, No. MCI--34(41)/2018-Med/170045 and

notification dated 13.05.2019 bearing No. MCI-

34(41)/2019/112862 defines the criterias for declaring whether

a candidate is fit/unfit for admission in a medical course and if

fit, whether the percentage of disability he/she has make

him/her eligible for admission under PwD Quota. These

regulations are based on RPwD Act, 2016.

It is further submitted that Government Medical College

and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh is one of the 10 centres

approved by the Medical Council of India for issuing Disability

Certificate as per 21 benchmark disabilities given RPwD Act,

2016 to candidates applying for admission in under Graduate

(MBBS) and Post Graduate (MD/MS) medical courses

(Annexure-III), Page-65 of the Information Bulletin for NEET

PG, 2020). Assessment of candidate has to be done following

the guidelines as notified vide Notification No, MCI-

34(41)/2018-Med./170045 dated 05.02.2019 (Certificate of

Disability, Page-66, Information Bulletin for NEET PG 2020)

now amended vide Notification dated 13.05.2019 bearing No.

MCI-34(41)/2019-Med./112862. Once candidate is found to be

physically intact as per above mentioned guidelines, only then

percentage of disability is calculated as per guidelines for

Assessment of Disabilities notified by the department of

Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangian),

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of

India, in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3,

Sub Section (ii) dated 05.01.2018. Medical Board is following

these MCI guidelines to assess whether a candidate is fit or

unfit for admission in a medical course which was done in the

case of the petitioner.

4. That the reply to the contents of Para No. 4 of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner is as under:-

i) That the contents of Para No. 4(i) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are matter of record

and hence need no reply. However, there was no

occasion for the petitioner to perform any practical

as an MBBS student and therefore his practical

performance skill cannot be adjudicated or judged

by the fact that he has completed his MBBS

degree . It is most respectfully submitted that

MBBS is more theoretical i.e. theory based

academic course therefore his derformity was

never noticed while conferring him MBBS

Degree. The over-sight by the college in allowing

him to pursue his MBBS Degree occurred

inadvertently and cannot form any legal or logical

basis for granting him admission in a super

specialization course i.e. MD (Forensic) as super

specialization requires the aggressive practical life

saving skills i.e. skills relating to resuscitation as

well as operative interventions etc.

 [Department provide the details as to how his

certificate for resuscitation has not been

considered.]

ii) That the contents of Para No. 4(ii) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are denied for want

of knowledge.

iii) That the contents of Para No. 4(iii) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner are also denied for

want of knowledge.

iv) That in reply to the contents of Para No. 4(iv) of

the writ petition filed by the petitioner it is

submitted that the MCI regulations for admission

in medical courses for persons with disability

(PwD) notified by the Board of Governors in

supersession of Medical Council of India

Notification No, MCI-34(41)/2018-Med./170045

dated 04.02.2019 and Notification dated

13.05.2019 bearing No. MCI-34(41)/2019-

Med./112862 stipulates ***Both hands intact, with

intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of

motion are essential to be considered eligible for

medical course.” It has not made any distinction

between involvement of dominant or non-

dominant hand. Presence of both intact hands is

critical for carrying out life saving resuscitation

 and performing surgical procedures. These

guidelines are specific for admission in medical

courses and are to ensure that aspiring students

possess minimum functional

abilities/competencies which are required to

complete the training programme and that the

patients are also safe under the care of such

medical graduates/postgraduates. In the instant

case, petitioner does not possess minimum

functional abilities to perform skills required of a

medical graduate/post graduate such as basic life-

saving resuscitation as well as operative

interventions etc. which he has to carry out as a

postgraduate student and later on as a practicing

physician in emergency situations.

v) That in reply to the contents of Para No. 4(v) of the

writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is submitted

that MCI guidelines for admission in medical

courses for persons with disability (PwD) notified

by the Board of Governors in supersession of

Medical Council of India Notification No, MCI-

34(41)/2018-Med./170045 dated 04.02.2019 and

Notification dated 13.05.2019 bearing No. MCI-

34(41)/2019-Med./112862 as clearly states in

Appendix “H” and Appendix “H-1” Clause 1, sub

 clause “f” i.e. others such as Amputation,

Poliomyelitis, etc. which is further clarified as

below:-

***Both hands intact, with intact

sensation, sufficient strength and

range of motion are essential to be

considered eligible for medical

course.”

As the petitioner did not fulfill this criteria, he was

declared Unfit. It is further clarified that percentage of

disability is only to be assessed if candidate fulfills above

mentioned requirement. Percentage of disability,

whether 23% or 80% is irrelevant in the case of the

petitioner.

vi) That in reply to the contents of Para No. 4(vi) of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the

petitioner has been made to undergo and meted out three

tier selection process. Firstly, the Medical Board,

Secondly Disability Board and thirdly the Specially

constituted Medical Board. All three Boards constituted

by the answering respondents with compassionate,

humane approach only with a view to accommodate

him , therefore, it is wrong to say that the answering

respondents-college is declaring the petitioner medically

“Unfit” without following the proper procedure and

 without examining the petitioner and without any basis.

As a matter of fact, Boards constituted by the GMCH,

Sector-32, Chandigarh has followed the MCI guidelines

and regulations in true letter and spirit.

vii) [Department furnish the details of

reasons and explanation] for the reply of

this sub para.

5. That the contents of Para No. 5 of the writ petition filed

by the petitioner are legal and hence need no reply.

6. That in reply to the contents of Para No. 6 of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that no

law point has arisen in the instant petition which

require adjudication by this Hon’ble Court as the

respondents have proceeded and declared the petitioner

“Unfit” on the basis of MCI’s guidelines and regulations.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the GMCH,

Sector-32, Chandigarh has followed the MCI guidelines

and regulations in true letter and spirit.

7. That the contents of Para No. 7 of the writ petition filed

by the petitioner are denied for want of knowledge.

8. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the writ petition filed

by the petitioner are legal and hence need no reply.

9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the writ petition filed

by the petitioner are denied for want of knowledge.

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most

humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the instant writ

petition filed by the petitioner is not legally sustainable and

may kindly be dismissed being devoid of merit in the interest

of justice.

Answering respondent.

(On behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2)

Filed through:

(Aakanksha Sawhney)
Advocate
Additional Standing Counsel,
U.T. Chandigarh.
Chandigarh
Dated: 29.10.2020.

Verification:-

It is verified that all the contents of the above paras are

true and correct to my knowledge and on the basis of official

record. No part of it is false and nothing relevant has been kept

concealed therein from this Hon’ble Court.

 Answering respondent.
(On behalf of Respondents )
Chandigarh
Dated: 29.10.2020.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.M. No.__________of 2020

In CWP No. 10618 of 2020.

Dr. Mandeep Singh.

….Petitioner.
Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and another.

…Applicants/Respondents.

Application under Section 151 of the Code

of Civil Procedure for seeking permission of

this Hon’ble Court to place on record the

written statement of the writ ptition filed by

the petitioner alongwith annexure..

_____________

Respectfully showeth:-

1. That the petitioner has filed the above mentioned Civil

Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court, which are likely to

succeed on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That now the next date in this case is 04.11.2020.

3. That in order to proper adjudication of the instant writ

petition filed by the petitioner, applicants/respondents want to

file the accompanying written statement of the said writ

petition.
4. That the present case is prima facie in favour of the

applicants/Respondents and against the petitioner.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble

Court that applicants/Respondents may kindly be allowed to

place on record the accompanying written statement for proper

adjudication of the above mentioned writ petition filed by the

petitioner in the interest of justice.

Note:- No affidavit in support of this application is required.

(Aakanksha Sawhney)
Advocate.
Additional Standing Counsel,
U.T. Chandigarh.

Chandigarh
Dated: 29.10.2020.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

In CWP No. 10618 of 2020.

Dr. Mandeep Singh.

….Petitioner.
Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and another.

…Respondents.

INDEX
S.No. Particulars Date Page Court’s
Nos. fee.

1. Application for placing 29.10.2020 1-2

on record the written
statement alongwith
annexure.
2. Written statement 29.10.2020
3. Annexure R-1 (Minutes)
4. Power of attorney.

(Aakanksha Sawhney)
Advocate.
Additional Standing Counsel,
U.T. Chandigarh.

Chandigarh
Dated: 29.10.2020.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

In CWP No. 10618 of 2020.

Dr. Mandeep Singh.

….Petitioner.
Versus

Union Territory of Chandigarh and another.

…Respondents.

TOTAL COURT FEE AFFIXED

(Aakanksha Sawhney)
Advocate.
Additional Standing Counsel,
U.T. Chandigarh.

Chandigarh
Dated: 29.10.2020.