Supreme Court Relief To Doctor Who Could Not Secure Admission To PG Course Because He Was Denied Study Leave Due To Covid 19 Situation In Delhi

It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to the Doctor, who had to make a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity, the Supreme Court remaked while directing PGI Chandigarh to grant admission to a Doctor who could not join the post graduate course as he was denied study leave in view of the COVID-19 pandemic in Delhi.Dr. Rohit Kumar has been working as a Medical Officer of the Emergency and Accidents Department at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi. He cleared INICET-2020 and was selected for the post graduate course in PGI, a premier medical institution. But he was declined Study Leave by the Delhi Govt. authorities in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and there was also a policy decision, not to grant Study Leave to doctors working in Government hospitals in Delhi and therefore could not secure admission. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the action of not granting Study Leave to enable him to join the post graduate course at PGI, Chandigarh. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said writ petition by the High Court, he approached the Supreme Court.The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian clarified that 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 Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But the said policy is obviously a temporary one and cannot continue indefinitely irrespective of changes in circumstances, the bench said taking note of the present COVID-19 situation in Delhi.The bench noted that the question of whether a meritorious candidate, denied admission to a medical course, can be accommodated in that course in the following academic year, was considered in S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi. It observed:"33. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments of this Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) and in National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others (supra) is that in rare and exceptional cases, a meritorious candidate, who has suffered injustice by reason of his/her inability to secure admission in a medical course, whether under-graduate or postgraduate, due to no fault of his/her own, who has taken recourse to law promptly, without delay, might be granted relief of being accommodated in the same post in the next session. 34. Of course, the judgments in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) and in National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others (supra) are clearly distinguishable, in that the concerned petitioners had wrongfully and illegally been denied admission by disqualifying them. The Appellant on the other hand, cleared INICET2020 and was allotted a seat in the post-graduate course in Paediatrics. PGI, Chandigarh had also acceded to the request of the Appellant to extend the last date of admission. Unfortunately the Appellant was refused Study Leave.35. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority for the issue of law which is raised and decided. What is binding on the courts is what the Supreme Court decides under Article 141 and not what the Supreme Court does under Article 142, in exercise of its power to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.37. All the conditions set forth in paragraph 30 of the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) quoted above, would not therefore, be verbatim applicable in the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case, for grant of the rare and extra-ordinary relief of admission to the same course in the next academic year. The broad principles laid down by this Court for admission to the same course in the following session, would have to be followed, to the extent feasible, to advance the cause of justice, but not with pedantic rigidity."The bench also quoted Advocate V. Sudhish Pai from his book 'Constitutional Supremacy A Revisit': "Judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as Euclid's theorems or as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances/pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case. To interpret words and provisions of a statute it may become necessary for judges to embark upon lengthy discussions, but such discussion is meant to explain not define. Judges interpret statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. "The court observed that, in this case, there has not been any lapse on the part of the Doctor, who could not join the post graduate course, due to the denial of Study Leave by the Government pursuant to a legitimate policy decision and in response to the call of duty. He cannot now be denied relief on the hyper technical ground that the Govt. authorities had not breached any rules or regulations, the court...

Supreme Court Relief To Doctor Who Could Not Secure Admission To PG Course Because He Was Denied Study Leave Due To Covid 19 Situation In Delhi

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags