Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission – Post graduate (PG) course – Appellant was a government doctor – He was granted permission to apply for and appear at the INICET2020 for admission to MD/MS course – He successfully cleared the examination and on 29.12.2020 was allotted a seat in the MD course – Authorities duly issued NOC to pursue PG course – After completing all the formalities, appellant applied to respondent no.1 for Study Leave – Meanwhile on 20.10.2020, a policy decision was taken not to grant any further study leave to doctors working in the government hospitals in view of the COVID-19 pandemic – Another office order dated 22.10.2020 was issued by Government of NCT of Delhi that in view of prevailing situation of COVID-19 in NCT of Delhi, it was not feasible in public interest to spare services of government doctors to pursue PG course – By order dated 22.01.2021, respondent no. 1 rejected the application of the appellant for Study Leave in view of policy decision dated 20.10.2020 and order dated 22.10.2020 – On 31.01.2021, admission to PG course for 2020 session was closed and allotment of PG seat to appellant was cancelled – Appellant unsuccessfully filed writ petition before High Court – On appeal, held: The policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors for a certain length of time, in apprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases to ensure the availability of as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India – In any case the prudence of and/or justification for the policy decision cannot be examined by the Court in exercise of its extraordinary power of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – At the same time, there is legitimate expectation of COVID-19 warriors like the appellant to fair treatment, in conformity with the Service Rules by which they are governed, to enable them to pursue higher education and enhance their educational qualifications – Appellant could not join PG course for no fault of his own, as his services were required in public interest, for the cause of humanity, to save lives – He continued to render service treating patients at the Government Hospital – Now that the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is under control, the Government of NCT of Delhi should, as a model employer, make an endeavour to see that the appellant is not deprived of the fruits of his success in the INICET 2020 and is able to pursue PG studies – It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to the appellant, when he had to make a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity – Since the seat in the PG Course in PGI Chandigarh which remained unfilled due to the inability of the appellant to join has been carried over to the July 2021 session which is yet to commence, and re-advertised, the PGI, Chandigarh is directed to admit the appellant to the PG course scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis of INICET 2020, which he had successfully cleared – Respondent No. 1 shall re-consider the application of the appellant for Study Leave, taking into consideration the decline in COVID-19 cases in NCT of Delhi, and take a reasonable decision in favour of the appellant – Unless there is a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases, the leave application of the appellant shall not be declined – Constitution of India – Art.142.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The concerned Respondents have apparently acted within the parameters of law in declining Study Leave to the Appellant in the teeth of COVID-19 pandemic, when doctors were urgently required in Government hospitals, to treat COVID19 patients. The fact that some doctors may have been granted Study Leave after the spread of COVID-19 cases in Delhi, did not debar the Government from taking a policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors any further, when exigencies necessitated such a decision. [Para 19][652-D-F]
2. The policy decision is stated to have been prompted by predictions of rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi. The exponential rise of COVID-19 cases in Delhi in April/May, 2021 with about 25,000 new cases per day and the consequential pressure on hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other medical establishments justify the apprehension which led to the policy decision of 20th October, 2020. In any case the prudence of and/or justification for the policy decision cannot be examined by the Court in exercise of its extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 20][652-F-G]
3. The policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors for a certain length of time, in apprehension of a rise in COVID19 cases, to ensure the availability of as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the legitimate expectation of COVID19 warriors like the Appellant to fair treatment, in conformity with the Service Rules by which they are governed, to enable them to pursue higher education and enhance their educational qualifications. The doctors with higher qualifications and special knowledge in specific areas would be an asset to the medical fraternity, as also to the society. [Paras 21, 22][652-H; 653-A-B]
4. The number of new cases per day has dropped to less than 100. It is reported that in most hospitals COVID-19 beds are now lying vacant. The application of the Appellant for Study Leave should, therefore, be reconsidered. The Appellant could not join the Post Graduate Course for no fault of his own, as his services were required in public interest, for the cause of humanity, to save lives. The admission to the Post Graduate Course was closed on 31st January, 2021 and classes commenced soon thereafter. The Appellant continued to render service to the Government of NCT of Delhi, treating patients at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. Now that the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is under control, the Government of NCT of Delhi should, as a model employer, make an endeavour to see that the Appellant is not deprived of the fruits of his success in the INICET 2020 and is able to pursue post graduate studies. [Paras 25, 26] [653-F-H; 654-A-B]
5. There can be no question of any direction of this Court, to admit the Appellant to the second semester directly, as suggested by appellant when he has not been able to attend a single class of the first semester. Since one unfilled seat in the Post Graduate Course in Paediatrics at the PGI Chandigarh, has been carried over and re-advertised for the July, 2021 course, no prejudice will be caused to any one, if that vacant seat is reallotted to the appellant once again. Unless the seat is re-allotted to the Appellant, and the Appellant is granted Study Leave by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, he will be irreparably prejudiced. [Para 29][654-F-G]
National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 992
– distinguished.
S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2019) SCC Online SC 1609 – referred to.
6. The Appellant has not been able to take admission to the MD Course in Paediatrics, which commenced in January, 2021, in circumstances entirely beyond his control, in spite of being selected for admission after successfully clearing the highly competitive INICET 2020. Unfortunately, the Appellant was not granted Study Leave from the concerned Respondents, for reasons not attributable to him. The Appellant was not at fault. But then PGI, Chandigarh was also not at fault. The Appellant also approached the High Court promptly, well before the admission was closed. Having regard to the circumstances in which the Appellant has been declined Study Leave, it cannot also be said that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted beyond the parameters of law. Nevertheless, the Appellant has suffered injustice, because of the denial of Study Leave, in that he has been deprived of the opportunity to pursue higher studies, which many other doctors have availed. It would be unfair to deny the Appellant the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his efforts even now, when the COVID-19 situation has improved and is in control, only because the Respondents have not committed “apparent breach of rules and regulations” in refusing the Appellant Study Leave. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to the plight of the Appellant. It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to the Appellant, when the Appellant had to make a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity. [Paras 38, 39, 42][658-E-H; 659-A, G-H]
7. Since the seat in the Post Graduate Course in PGI Chandigarh which remained unfilled due to the inability of the Appellant to join has been carried over to the July 2021 session which is yet to commence, and re-advertised, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the PGI, Chandigarh, being the Respondent No. 3 to admit the Appellant to the post graduate course scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis of INICET 2020, which he has successfully cleared. The Respondent No. 1 shall re-consider the application of the Appellant for Study Leave, taking into consideration the decline in COVID-19 cases in NCT of Delhi, and take a reasonable decision in favour of the Appellant. Unless there is a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases, the leave application of the Appellant shall not be declined. These directions are being passed in exercise of the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the Appellant had cleared INICET 2020 held in November 2020 and had been offered admission to PGI, Chandigarh, but could not join as he was not released on Study Leave in view of the serious COVID-19 situation prevailing in NCT of Delhi at the material time, and this order will not be treated as a precedent. [Paras 43, 44][660-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.