PGI admission scam

Bangalore-based doc held

Chandigarh, October 6
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today arrested a Bangalore-based doctor in connection with doctors’ admission scam that rocked the PGI last year. The CBI arrested Dr Rajnikant, who is a doctor in Bangalore Medical College, for impersonating in the exam in place of Dr Amit Musle. The accused was arrested last night.
Amit Musle, along with another student, had procured admission to the PGIMER on the basis of impersonation and manipulation.
The accused doctor was produced in court and sent to judicial custody. A case under Sections 120B, 419, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been registered against the accused.
The scam came to light in September last year when the CBI had arrested Dr Amit Musale, a resident of Nagpur, and Dr Sujay Sonawane, a resident of Maharashtra, for procuring admission in the PGI on the basis of impersonation. The two had cleared the exam with the help of mastermind Mumbai-based agent Gaurav Shaleen, who had arranged imperosnators for them. Gaurav Shaleen has been arrested by the CBI.
Dr Amit was pursuing post graduation in pharmacology, while Dr Sujay had secured admission in paediatrics when the CBI arested them. The investigating agency managed to arrest the impersonator doctor today following disclosures by the prime accused Gaurav Shaleen.

PPSC Recruitment Scam

Judges divided over referring matter to a larger Bench

Chandigarh, October 6
The controversy shrouding the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) recruitment scam refuses to die down.
Eight years after the dismissal of more than 90 petitions filed by PCS officers whose services were terminated, a three-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is divided over the issue of referring the matter to a larger Bench of five Judges.
On the one side is Justice Mutacci Jayapaul and on the other Justice Alok Singh and Justice Ritu Bahri.
Apparently, Justice Jayapaul is not in favour of remanding the case to a larger Bench after the matter has been heard at length. Available information suggests Justice Jayapaul has written a dissenting note of two pages, giving in detail the reasons behind his refusal to agree with the other two Judges.
The matter will now be heard by a larger Bench of the High Court, as in cases of dissent the majority view prevails.
The officers were recruited in the executive, judicial and allied services when Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu was PPSC Chairman. Challenging the orders passed against them, the petitioners had then claimed that they were not related to the alleged scam.
The Bench, comprising the then Chief Justice BK Roy, Justice GS Singhvi and Justice NK Sodhi had on July 7, 2003, ruled that the state government had inherent powers to nullify the action in case of tainted selection. But the apex court, vide its judgment dated May 3, 2006, remanded the matter to the High Court, with a direction to constitute a committee to segregate tainted candidates from the non-tainted.
Pursuant to the SC directions, a three-judge committee of Justice JS Khehar, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice Surya Kant was constituted for looking into the executive branch selections. Taking up the case, the three-judge Bench headed by Justice Alok Singh asserted: “The committee of three judges, vide report dated February 8, 2007, found 40 candidates tainted on the basis of material available before the committee.
“After the report of the three-Judge committee, a supplementary challan was filed in the criminal case against Rubinderjit Singh Brar, Bikramjit Singh Shergill and Sukhpreet Singh Sidhu, although they were not found tainted by the committee.
“It shows that there are more tainted candidates over and above the 40 candidates as found by the committee”.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Alok Singh asserted: “In my opinion, since the earlier judgment passed by the Bench of three Judges of this court was doubted by the apex court, and the matter was remanded and thereafter the committee consisting of three judges has given a report, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the matter should be heard by a larger Bench”. The view has been endorsed by Justice Bahri.