DR. ROHIT KUMAR versus SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. on 15 July 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

DR. ROHIT KUMAR

A

v.

SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021)

B

JULY 15, 2021

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission – Postgraduate (PG) course – Appellant was a government doctor – Hewas granted permission to apply for and appear at the INICET-C2020 for admission to MD/MS course – He successfully cleared theexamination and on 29.12.2020 was allotted a seat in the MD course– Authorities duly issued NOC to pursue PG course – Aftercompleting all the formalities, appellant applied to respondent no.1for Study Leave – Meanwhile on 20.10.2020, a policy decision wasDtaken not to grant any further study leave to doctors working in thegovernment hospitals in view of the COVID-19 pandemic – Anotheroffice order dated 22.10.2020 was issued by Government of NCTof Delhi that in view of prevailing situation of COVID-19 in NCT ofDelhi, it was not feasible in public interest to spare services ofgovernment doctors to pursue PG course – By order datedE22.01.2021, respondent no. 1 rejected the application of theappellant for Study Leave in view of policy decision dated 20.10.2020and order dated 22.10.2020 – On 31.01.2021, admission to PGcourse for 2020 session was closed and allotment of PG seat toappellant was cancelled – Appellant unsuccessfully filed writ petitionFbefore High Court – On appeal, held: The policy decision not togrant Study Leave to doctors for a certain length of time, inapprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases to ensure the availabilityof as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neither arbitrary, nordiscriminatory, nor violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India –In any case the prudence of and/or justification for the policyGdecision cannot be examined by the Court in exercise of itsextraordinary power of judicial review under Art.226 of theConstitution of India – At the same time, there is legitimateexpectation of COVID-19 warriors like the appellant to fairtreatment, in conformity with the Service Rules by which they areHgoverned, to enable them to pursue higher education and enhance DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF

DELHI & ORS.

their educational qualifications – Appellant could not join PGcourse for no fault of his own, as his services were required inpublic interest, for the cause of humanity, to save lives – Hecontinued to render service treating patients at the GovernmentHospital – Now that the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is undercontrol, the Government of NCT of Delhi should, as a modelemployer, make an endeavour to see that the appellant is notdeprived of the fruits of his success in the INICET 2020 and is ableto pursue PG studies – It would be a travesty of justice to denyrelief to the appellant, when he had to make a personal sacrifice inthe larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity – Since theseat in the PG Course in PGI Chandigarh which remained unfilleddue to the inability of the appellant to join has been carried over tothe July 2021 session which is yet to commence, and re-advertised,the PGI, Chandigarh is directed to admit the appellant to the PGcourse scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis of INICET2020, which he had successfully cleared – Respondent No. 1 shallre-consider the application of the appellant for Study Leave, takinginto consideration the decline in COVID-19 cases in NCT of Delhi,and take a reasonable decision in favour of the appellant – Unlessthere is a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases, the leave applicationof the appellant shall not be declined – Constitution of India –Art.142.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The concerned Respondents have apparentlyacted within the parameters of law in declining Study Leave tothe Appellant in the teeth of COVID-19 pandemic, when doctorswere urgently required in Government hospitals, to treat COVID-19 patients. The fact that some doctors may have been grantedStudy Leave after the spread of COVID-19 cases in Delhi, didnot debar the Government from taking a policy decision not togrant Study Leave to doctors any further, when exigenciesnecessitated such a decision. [Para 19][652-D-F]

2. The policy decision is stated to have been prompted bypredictions of rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi.The exponential rise of COVID-19 cases in Delhi in April/May, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2021 with about 25,000 new cases per day and the consequentialpressure on hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other medicalestablishments justify the apprehension which led to the policydecision of 20[th] October, 2020. In any case the prudence of and/or justification for the policy decision cannot be examined bythe Court in exercise of its extraordinary power of judicialBreview under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.[Para 20][652-F-G]

3. The policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctorsfor a certain length of time, in apprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases, to ensure the availability of as many doctors, as possibleCfor duty, is neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, thisCourt cannot be oblivious to the legitimate expectation of COVID-19 warriors like the Appellant to fair treatment, in conformitywith the Service Rules by which they are governed, to enable Dthem to pursue higher education and enhance their educationalqualifications. The doctors with higher qualifications and specialknowledge in specific areas would be an asset to the medicalfraternity, as also to the society. [Paras 21, 22][652-H; 653-A-B]

4. The number of new cases per day has dropped to lessEthan 100. It is reported that in most hospitals COVID-19 bedsare now lying vacant. The application of the Appellant for StudyLeave should, therefore, be reconsidered. The Appellant couldnot join the Post Graduate Course for no fault of his own, as hisservices were required in public interest, for the cause ofhumanity, to save lives. The admission to the Post GraduateFCourse was closed on 31[st] January, 2021 and classes commencedsoon thereafter. The Appellant continued to render service tothe Government of NCT of Delhi, treating patients at the DeenDayal Upadhyay Hospital. Now that the COVID-19 situation inDelhi is under control, the Government of NCT of Delhi should,Gas a model employer, make an endeavour to see that the Appellantis not deprived of the fruits of his success in the INICET 2020and 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,Hto admit the Appellant to the second semester directly, as DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF

DELHI & ORS.

suggested by appellant when he has not been able to attend asingle class of the first semester. Since one unfilled seat in thePost Graduate Course in Paediatrics at the PGI Chandigarh, hasbeen carried over and re-advertised for the July, 2021 course,no prejudice will be caused to any one, if that vacant seat is re-allotted to the appellant once again. Unless the seat is re-allottedto the Appellant, and the Appellant is granted Study Leave by theRespondent Nos. 1 and 2, he will be irreparably prejudiced.[Para 29][654-F-G]

National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru SriyahKoumudi and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 992– distinguished.

S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh andOthers (2019) SCC Online SC 1609 – referred to.

6. The Appellant has not been able to take admission tothe MD Course in Paediatrics, which commenced in January, 2021,in circumstances entirely beyond his control, in spite of beingselected for admission after successfully clearing the highlycompetitive INICET 2020. Unfortunately, the Appellant was notgranted Study Leave from the concerned Respondents, forreasons not attributable to him. The Appellant was not at fault.But then PGI, Chandigarh was also not at fault. The Appellantalso approached the High Court promptly, well before theadmission was closed. Having regard to the circumstances inwhich the Appellant has been declined Study Leave, it cannotalso be said that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted beyondthe parameters of law. Nevertheless, the Appellant has sufferedinjustice, because of the denial of Study Leave, in that he hasbeen deprived of the opportunity to pursue higher studies, whichmany other doctors have availed. It would be unfair to deny theAppellant the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his efforts evennow, when the COVID-19 situation has improved and is in control,only because the Respondents have not committed “apparentbreach of rules and regulations” in refusing the Appellant StudyLeave. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to the plightof the Appellant. It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to

A

B

C

DE

FG

H

Athe Appellant, when the Appellant had to make a personal sacrificein 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 PGIChandigarh which remained unfilled due to the inability of theBAppellant to join has been carried over to the July 2021 sessionwhich is yet to commence, and re-advertised, this Court deemsit appropriate to direct the PGI, Chandigarh, being theRespondent No. 3 to admit the Appellant to the post graduatecourse scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis ofINICET 2020, which he has successfully cleared. The RespondentCNo. 1 shall re-consider the application of the Appellant for StudyLeave, taking into consideration the decline in COVID-19 casesin NCT of Delhi, and take a reasonable decision in favour of theAppellant. Unless there is a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases,the leave application of the Appellant shall not be declined. TheseDdirections are being passed in exercise of the power of this Courtunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the facts andcircumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that theAppellant had cleared INICET 2020 held in November 2020 andhad been offered admission to PGI, Chandigarh, but could notjoin as he was not released on Study Leave in view of the seriousECOVID-19 situation prevailing in NCT of Delhi at the materialtime, and this order will not be treated as a precedent. [Paras 43,44][660-A-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2739of 2021F

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 52 of 2021.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv., Nitin Saluja, Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya,Ms. Swati Singh, Ms. Sasha Maria Paul, Advs. for the Appellant.

G

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Anmol Chandan,Ms. Seema Bengani, Shiv Mangal Sharma, B. V. Balaram Das, SudarshanRajan, Sumant De, Ramesh Rawat, Mahesh Kumar, Hitain Bajaj, RohitBhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondents.

H

DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OFDELHI & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against a finaljudgment and order dated 12-02-2021 passed by a Division Bench of theDelhi High Court dismissing the appeal, being L.P.A. No.52/2021, of theAppellant against an order dated 02-02-2021 passed by the Single Benchdismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No.499 of 2021 filed by theAppellant.

3. The Appellant, a doctor, who joined service of the Governmentof National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, on 5th August 2014, ispresently posted as Medical Officer of the Emergency and AccidentsDepartment at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi.

4. The Appellant has duly completed five years of regular andcontinuous service with the Government of NCT of Delhi and is thuseligible to avail Study Leave to pursue the post graduate course, inaccordance with the Directives and Guidelines of the Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare, Government of India issued vide O.M.A.12034/0312012-CHS-V dated 2nd November, 2012, the relevant portion whereof,is extracted hereinbelow:

“1.CHS officer who has satisfactory completed period ofprobation and has rendered not less than five years regularservice including the period of probation under theGovernment and is not due to reach the age of superannuationfrom Government service within five years from the date onwhich he is expected to return to duty after the expiry of theleave, is entitled to avail study leave under Rule 50 of CCS(leave) Rule 1072.”

5. On or about 14th October 2020, the Appellant was duly grantedpermission to apply for and appear at the INICET-2020, a highlycompetitive examination for admission to the MD/MS courses in someof the premier medical institutions of the country, such as All India Instituteof Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, the Post Graduate Instituteof Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, etc.

6. The results of the INICET-2020 were declared on 28thNovember, 2020. The Appellant successfully cleared the Examination A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand was, accordingly called by PGI Chandigarh for counselling foradmission to the MD/MS course, by a notice dated 24[th] December, 2020.The Appellant duly participated in the off-line counselling for the MD/MS course at PGI, Chandigarh on 29[th] December, 2020, and was allotteda seat in the MD course in Paediatrics.B7. The authorities of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital duly issuedthe required ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the Appellant to enable theAppellant to pursue the post graduate course in Paediatrics at PGI,Chandigarh. After completing all the requisite formalities, the Appellantapplied to the Respondent No.1 for Study Leave as per the Rules, toenable him to join the MD course in Paediatrics at the PGI, Chandigarh.CIn the meanwhile, on or about 20th October 2020, a policy decision wastaken, not to grant any further Study Leave to the doctors working in thehospitals of the Government of NCT of Delhi, in view of the COVID-19pandemic.

8. Another Office Order dated 22-10-2020 was issued by theDGovernment of NCT of Delhi, Health and Family Welfare Department(Medical Branch), which is extracted herein below for convenience: - “In view of the prevailing situation of COVID-19 in NCT ofDelhi and the projections made by Experts about the expectedincrease in cases of COVID-19 during the period November-EDecember, 2020, it is not feasible, in public interest to sparethe services of GDMOs, to pursue Post Graduation courses.GDMOs cannot be acceded to at this juncture.”

9. By an order dated 22nd January 2021, the Respondent No.1rejected the application of the Appellant for Study Leave, having regardFto the policy decision taken by the Government on 20th October, 2020and the subsequent order dated 22nd October, 2020. On 31st January,2020, admission to the post graduate courses in PGI, Chandigarh, for the2020 session was closed, and the allotment of the Post Graduate seat tothe Appellant was cancelled.

10. The Appellant had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High CourtGchallenging the action of the Respondent No. 1 in not granting StudyLeave to the Appellant to enable him to join the post graduate course atPGI, Chandigarh. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Single Benchof the High Court, and an appeal therefrom, filed by the Appellant, hasbeen dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, by the judgmentHand order impugned in this appeal.

11. As observed above, even though the Appellant cleared INICET-2020 and was selected for the post graduate course in PGI, a premiermedical institution, he was declined Study Leave by the RespondentNo.1 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential policydecision adopted on 20th October 2020, not to grant Study Leave todoctors working in Government hospitals in Delhi.

12. Ms. Geeta Luthra appearing on behalf of the Appellant arguedthat the Appellant had arbitrarily been declined Study Leave whereasmany other doctors, similarly circumstanced as the Appellant, had beengranted Study Leave to pursue post graduate courses, even after theonset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 havethereby discriminated against the petitioner.

13. Ms. Luthra cited the instances of Dr. Dharmendra Kumar,Dr. Vipul Pandey, Dr. Brijesh Patel, Dr. Avneesh Tripathi, Dr. PunitMishra who had admittedly been granted Study Leave in July/August/September, when there were a large number of COVID-19 cases inDelhi.

14. Ms. Luthra argued that on 14th October 2020, when theAppellant was granted permission to apply for and appear at the INICET-2020, the number of new COVID-19 cases reported in the preceding 24hours was 3324. However, in December/January /February, the dailyfigure of new cases had declined substantially. There could, therefore,be no justification in refusing Study Leave to the Appellant and deprivinghim of the opportunity to pursue post graduate studies in a premierinstitution.

15. While it is true that admittedly numerous doctors named in theSLP have been granted Study Leave during the COVID-19 pandemic,when COVID-19 cases were on the rise, those doctors were grantedStudy Leave before the policy decision of 20th October, 2020 and theorder dated 22nd October, 2020 referred to above. Our attention has notbeen drawn to a single case of grant of Study Leave to a doctor of ahospital under the Government of NCT, after the said policy decision.

16. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General,appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 argued that the RespondentNo.1 had neither acted arbitrarily, nor discriminated against the Appellant,in turning down the request of the Appellant for Study Leave. The orderof the Respondent No.1 in refusing Study Leave to the Appellant had to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

Abe taken in view of the Pandemic, with predictions of exponential rise inthe number of COVID-19 CASES and the consequential policy decisiontaken on 20th October, 2020.

17. Ms. Bhati argued that even though there may have been adecline in the number of fresh COVID-19 cases in December/January/BFebruary, the policy adopted on 20th October, 2020 and the subsequentorder dated 22nd October, 2020 had not been annulled, in view ofpredictions of the likelihood of a possible second wave and spurt inCOVID-19 cases. The doctors of hospitals run by the Government ofNCT, Delhi, could not, therefore, be spared for higher studies.

C18. Ms. Bhati also argued that Study Leave could not be claimedas a matter of right and it was open to the Government to refuse anyapplication for Study Leave, if the service of the concerned doctor wasrequired in public interest. She submitted that the Respondent No.1 hasacted within the parameters of law and has not committed any wrong innot allowing Study Leave to the Appellant.D

19. It may be true, as argued by Ms. Bhati, that no leave can beclaimed as a matter of right. The concerned Respondents have apparentlyacted within the parameters of law in declining Study Leave to theAppellant in the teeth of COVID-19 pandemic, when doctors wereurgently required in Government hospitals, to treat COVID-19 patients.EThe fact that some doctors may have been granted Study Leave afterthe spread of COVID-19 cases in Delhi, did not debar the Governmentfrom taking a policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors anyfurther, when exigencies necessitated such a decision.

20. The policy decision is stated to have been prompted byFpredictions of rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi. Theexponential rise of COVID-19 cases in Delhi in April/May, 2021 withabout 25,000 new cases per day and the consequential pressure onhospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other medical establishments justifythe apprehension which led to the policy decision of 20[th] October, 2020.GIn any case the prudence of and/or justification for the policy decisioncannot be examined by the Court in exercise of its extraordinary powerof judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

21. The policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors for acertain length of time, in apprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases, toensure the availability of as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neitherH

arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitutionof India.

22. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the legitimateexpectation of COVID-19 warriors like the Appellant to fair treatment,in conformity with the Service Rules by which they are governed, toenable them to pursue higher education and enhance their educationalqualifications. Needless to mention that doctors with higher qualificationsand special knowledge in specific areas would be an asset to the medicalfraternity, as also to the society.

23. The guidelines and directions of the Ministry of Health andFamily Welfare, as contained in the Order being O.M.A. 12034/0312012-CHS-V dated 2[nd] November, 2012 entitles a Central Health ServiceOfficer who has satisfactorily completed probation and rendered notless than five years of regular service, to avail Study Leave under theCCS (Leave) Rules 1972, provided he is not due to attain the age ofretirement within 5 years from the date on which the officer is expectedto return to duty, and/or in other words, within five years from the dateon which his Study Leave ends.

24. The policy decision taken on 20[th] October, 2020, not to grantfurther Study Leave to doctors working in hospitals under the Governmentof NCT of Delhi in apprehension of rise in COVID cases, is obviously atemporary one. The policy cannot continue indefinitely irrespective ofchanges in circumstances. The policy has necessarily to be reviewedfrom time to time and relaxed and/or modified once there is decrease inthe number of COVID-19 cases in the NCT of Delhi.

25. Thankfully, the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is now undercontrol. As on 14[th] July, 2021, that is, yesterday, there were total numberof 688 active COVID-19 cases, of whom about 250 were in homeisolation, as per news reports based on bulletins issued by the HealthDepartment of the Government. The number of new cases per day hasdropped to less than 100. It is reported that in most hospitals COVID-19beds are now lying vacant. The application of the Appellant for StudyLeave should, therefore, be reconsidered.

26. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the Appellantcould not join the Post Graduate Course for no fault of his own, as hisservices were required in public interest, for the cause of humanity, tosave lives. The admission to the Post Graduate Course was closed on AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A31[st] January, 2021 and classes commenced soon thereafter. The Appellantcontinued to render service to the Government of NCT of Delhi, treatingpatients at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. Now that the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is under control, the Government of NCT of Delhishould, as a model employer, make an endeavour to see that the Appellantis not deprived of the fruits of his success in the INICET 2020 and isBable to pursue post graduate studies.

27. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, appearing for PGI Chandigarh, submittedon instructions that candidates who had cleared the INICET 2020 andselected to a post graduate course in PGI joined the January, 2021 session.The students who joined the January 2021 session, which commencedCin January, 2021, have completed one semester and are now in the secondsemester. The admission to the next session, which is due to commencein July, 2021 will be made by conducting the INICET 2021.

28. Mr. Rajan submits that INICET 2021, which was originallyscheduled to be held on 16[th] June, 2021, has been postponed to 22[nd] July,D2021 on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. One unfilled seat of theMD course in Paediatrics, of the sponsored category, for the January2021 session, at PGI Chandigarh, which had not been filled up becauseof the inability of the Appellant to join, has been re-advertised for theJuly 2021 session and is to be filled up through INICET 2021.E

29. Ms. Luthra’s submission that the Appellant be admitted in theJanuary 2021 session cannot be accepted, since the classes commencedover six months ago and the students who were admitted to that session,have completed their first semester and entered the second semester.There can be no question of any direction of this Court, to admit theFAppellant to the second semester directly, as suggested by Ms. Luthra,when he has not been able to attend a single class of the first semester.The question is, whether the Appellant can be accommodated in thenext academic session scheduled to commence in July, 2021. Since oneunfilled seat in the Post Graduate Course in Paediatrics at the PGIChandigarh, has been carried over and re-advertised for the July, 2021Gcourse, no prejudice will be caused to any one, if that vacant seat is re-allotted to the appellant once again. Unless the seat is re-allotted to theAppellant, and the Appellant is granted Study Leave by the RespondentNos. 1 and 2, he will be irreparably prejudiced.

30. The question of whether a meritorious candidate, deniedHadmission to a medical course, can be accommodated in that course in DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OFDELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

the following academic year, was considered by a three Judge Bench ofthis Court in S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradeshand Others[1]. The Court held: - “29. However, the question is with respect to a student, ameritorious candidate for no fault of his/her has been deniedadmission illegally and who has pursued his/her legal rightsexpeditiously and without delay is entitled to any relief ofadmission more particularly in the courses like MBBS ….

30. The aforesaid question is required to be considered onlyto the cases where (i) no fault in attributable to thecandidate;(ii) the candidate has pursued her rights and legalremedies expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there isfault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach ofrules and regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to be moremeritorious then the last candidate who has been givenadmission.”

31. In S. Krishna Sradha (supra) this Court directed as follows:- “33. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, ameritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admissionin MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for nofault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and soas to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to sufferfor no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: (i) Thatin a case where candidate/student has approached the court atthe earliest and without any 25 delay and that the question is withrespect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall bemade by the concerned court to dispose of the proceedings bygiving priority and at the earliest. (ii) Under exceptionalcircumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributableto the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal rightexpeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the partof the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules andregulations as well as related principles in the process of grant ofadmission which would violate the right of equality and equaltreatment to the competing candidates and if the time scheduleprescribed–30th September, is over, to do the complete justice,the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increasethe seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seatsand such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e.,within one month from 30th September, i.e., cut off date and 26under no circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission inthe same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed thatBsuch relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances andin the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, theCourt may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to acandidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the categorywho, if the admission would have been given to a more meritoriousCcandidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not havegot the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however,after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admissionis sought to be cancelled. (iii) In case the Court is of the opinionthat no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate inthe very academic year and wherever it finds that the action ofDthe authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules andregulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the studentsand that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such 27candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest andwithout any delay,the court can mould the relief and direct theEadmission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academicyear by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase inthe number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the caseand in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that themanagement was at fault and wrongly denied the admission tothe meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct toFreduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year,meaning thereby the student/students who was/were deniedadmission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic yearout of the seats allotted in the management quota. (iv) Grant ofthe compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substituteGfor restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case theCourt may award the compensation to such a meritoriouscandidate who for no fault of his/her has 28 to lose one fullacademic year and who could not be granted any relief ofadmission in the same academic year. (v) It is clarified that theaforesaid directions pertain for Admission in MBBS Course onlyHand we have not dealt with Post Graduate Medical Course.”

DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OFDELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

32. The judgment in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) was renderedin the context of admission to the MBBS Course and not to a postgraduate course. However, in National Medical Commission vs.Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others[2], this Court held:- “11. As the dispute in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) pertained toadmission to the undergraduate MBBS Course, this Court heldthat they have not dealt with the Post Graduate MedicalCourses. Mr. Parameshwar argued that there is no reasonwhy the logic behind the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha(supra) should not be made applicable to Post GraduateCourses. We find force in the said argument of Mr.Parameshwar. This Court was only dealing with the admissionto the MBBS Course for which reason directions given in thesaid judgment were restricted to the MBBS Course. Directionsissued in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) can be made applicableto admission to Post Graduate Courses as well.”

33. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments ofthis Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra)and in National MedicalCommission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others (supra) isthat in rare and exceptional cases, a meritorious candidate, who hassuffered injustice by reason of his/her inability to secure admission in amedical course, whether under-graduate or post-graduate, due to nofault of his/her own, who has taken recourse to law promptly, withoutdelay, might be granted relief of being accommodated in the same postin the next session.

34. Of course, the judgments in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) andin National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudiand Others (supra) are clearly distinguishable, in that the concernedpetitioners had wrongfully and illegally been denied admission bydisqualifying them. The Appellant on the other hand, cleared INICET-2020 and was allotted a seat in the post-graduate course in Paediatrics.PGI, Chandigarh had also acceded to the request of the Appellant toextend the last date of admission. Unfortunately the Appellant was refusedStudy Leave.

35. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority for the issue oflaw which is raised and decided. What is binding on the courts is what

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Athe Supreme Court decides under Article 141 and not what the SupremeCourt does under Article 142, in exercise of its power to do completejustice in any cause or matter pending before it.

36. To quote V. Sudhish Pai from Constitutional Supremacy ARevisit:B

“Judgments and observations in judgments are not to be readas Euclid’s theorems or as provisions of statute. Judicialutterances/pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of aparticular case. To interpret words and provisions of a statuteit may become necessary for judges to embark upon lengthyCdiscussions, but such discussion is meant to explain not defineJudges interpret statutes, their words are not to be interpretedas statutes. “

37. All the conditions set forth in paragraph 30 of the judgment inS. Krishna Sradha (supra) quoted above, would not therefore, beDverbatim applicable in the distinguishable facts and circumstances ofthis case, for grant of the rare and extra-ordinary relief of admission tothe same course in the next academic year. The broad principles laiddown by this Court for admission to the same course in the followingsession, would have to be followed, to the extent feasible, to advancethe cause of justice, but not with pedantic rigidity.E

38. In this case, the Appellant has not been able to take admissionto the MD Course in Paediatrics, which commenced in January, 2021, incircumstances entirely beyond his control, in spite of being selected foradmission after successfully clearing the highly competitive INICET 2020.Unfortunately, the Appellant was not granted Study Leave from theFconcerned Respondents, for reasons not attributable to him. The Appellantwas not at fault. But then PGI, Chandigarh was also not at fault. TheAppellant also approached the High Court promptly, well before theadmission was closed.

39. Having regard to the circumstances in which the AppellantGhas been declined Study Leave, it cannot also be said that the RespondentNos. 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 theAppellant the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his efforts even now,H

when the COVID-19 situation has improved and is in control, onlybecause the Respondents have not committed “apparent breach of rulesand regulations”in refusing the Appellant Study Leave. This Court cannotfold its arms and remain a mute spectator to the plight of the Appellant.After all, “nothing rankles the heart more than a brooding sense ofinjustice”.

40. In S. Krishna Sradha (supra), the condition of “fault on thepart of the authorities and apparent breach of rules and regulations” forgrant of the relief of admission to the next session to a candidate wronglydenied admission in an earlier session, is a sequel to and flows from thecondition that there should be no fault on the part of that candidate. TheCourt has elaborated on the condition of “no fault of the candidate” toensure that relief is not claimed as a matter of right for any lapse orinfraction of rules on the part of the candidate by recourse to the plea ofthe candidate not being at fault. To cite an example, an individual candidatecannot as a matter of right claim relief when for inability to fulfil a conditionof admission for reasons such as computer crash at his end, inability toraise funds within time for payment of admission fees, inability to adhereto time schedules by reason of vehicular breakdown, illness, bereavementetc. which may not be within the control of the candidate, as otherwiseit would be impossible for educational institutions to complete theadmission process, in time, when there are a large number of applicants.

41. In this case, there has not been any lapse on the part of theAppellant. The Appellant could not joint the post graduate course in PGIChandigarh for the January 2021 session for reasons attributable to theRespondent Nos. 1 and 2 though technically, the said Respondents cannotbe said to have acted illegally or in breach of rules and regulations, indenying the Appellant Study Leave, in apprehension of rise in COVID-19 cases and the exigency of availability of doctors in full strength, asfar as possible.

42. The Appellant, who could not join the post graduate course,due to the denial of Study Leave by the Government pursuant to alegitimate policy decision and in response to the call of duty, cannot nowbe denied relief on the hyper technical ground that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not breached any rules or regulations. It would be a travestyof justice to deny relief to the Appellant, when the Appellant had tomake a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the causeof humanity.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A43. Since the seat in the Post Graduate Course in PGI Chandigarhwhich remained unfilled due to the inability of the Appellant to join hasbeen 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 thepost graduate course scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basisBof INICET 2020, which he has successfully cleared. The RespondentNo. 1 shall re-consider the application of the Appellant for Study Leave,taking into consideration the decline in COVID-19 cases in NCT ofDelhi, and take a reasonable decision in favour of the Appellant. Unlessthere is a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases, the leave application ofCthe Appellant shall not be declined.

44. These directions are being passed in exercise of the power ofthis Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the facts andcircumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the Appellanthad cleared INICET 2020 held in November 2020 and had been offeredDadmission to PGI, Chandigarh, but could not join as he was not releasedon Study Leave in view of the serious COVID-19 situation prevailing inNCT of Delhi at the material time, and this order will not be treated as aprecedent.

45. The appeal is, disposed of, accordingly. The impugned judgmentEand order of the Division Bench of the High Court, and judgment andorder of the Single Bench of the High Court dated 02.02.2021 are setaside.

F

Devika Gujral