Dr Rohit Kumar Vs Secretary, Office Of Lt Governor Of Delhi: The SC Allows Delhi Doctors To Pursue Higher Studies Says Courts Cannot Be Oblivious To Legitimate Expectations

DATE OF JUDGEMENT
15th July 2021

BENCH
Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

COUNSEL
Adv. Geeta Luthra ………………… (Appellant)
Adv.Sudharsan Rajan …………....(Respondent)

PARTIES
Dr. Rohit Kumar ……………………….(Appellant)
Secretary, Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi…………(Respondent)

SUBJECT

In the Judgment of Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary, the Court invoked Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, while granting relief to the petitioner and made it a clear direction in the case that this order will not be treated as a precedent.

FACTS

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant against a final judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi.
2. Dr. Rohit Kumar is a doctor and presently posted as a medical officer and accident department at the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, New Delhi. The appellant had cleared INICET 2020 held in November 2020 and had been offered admission to PGI Chandigarh. Dr. Rohit Kumar contended that even though he cleared INICET 2020, could not join as he was not granted Study Leave, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential policy decision adopted by 20th October 2020.
3. The respondent had acted arbitrarily and discriminatory against the petitioner and had declined Study Leave, whereas many other doctors on similar circumstances had been granted Study Leave to pursue post-graduation courses, even after the on-set of the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. The appellant was aggrieved by the decision and suffered injustice because of the denial of Study Leave and that he had been deprived of the opportunity to pursue higher studies. The directions were 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.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

• Article 141 Constitution of India:Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts- The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
• Article 142 constitution of India: TheSupreme Court,in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary, for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed.
• Article 14 of Constitution of India- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection laws, within the territory of India.

ISSUES

The following are the major issues framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

• Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential policy is definitive?
• Whether the policy opted due to exponential rises of COVID-19 cases was within in legal parameters or transgressing Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether the refusal of Study Leave would deprive him of a chance to pursue higher studies?
• Whether the appellant could be accommodated in the next academic session?
• Whether a meritorious candidate is denied admission to a medical course, in the following academic year?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

• The Court opined that it would be a travesty to deny relief to the applicant when the appellant had to make personal sacrifices for the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity.
• 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, only because the respondents have not committed “apparent breach of rules and regulations” in refusing the appellant Study Leave.
• The Court cannot fold its arms and remain a mute spectator to the plight of the appellant. After all, “nothing rankles the heart more than a brooding sense of injustice”.

CONTENDED ARGUMENTS

• One of the arguments from the appellant’s side, the appellant had cleared INICET 2020, was selected for the PG Course, and duly fulfilled all the formalities issued by the authorities of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital whereas many other doctors on similar circumstances had allowed Study Leave to pursue the PG Course even after the onset COVID-19 rise of cases.
• Therefore there would be no justification that the appellant would arbitrarily decline for Study Leave.
• The respondent argued that the Study Leave could not be claimed as a matter of right. The Policy decision was taken in a view of the prediction of the spurt of the second wave.
• However, the Court observed that no leave can be claimed as a matter of right. Respondents have acted within the parameters of law in declining Study Leave to the appellant. The policy decision is prompted by predictions of the exponential rise of COVID-19 cases in Delhi in April/May in Delhi.
• The policy decision cannot be examined by the Court in the exercise of its extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The policy decision not to grant study leave to doctors for a certain emergency rise in COVID-19 cases, so the policy acts as neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant has suffered injustice because of the denial of Study Leave.
• As suggested by the appellant 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 the next academic session scheduled to commence in July 2021 since one unfilled seat at the PGI Chandigarh has been carried over and re-advertised for the July 2021 course, no prejudice would be caused to anyone, if that vacant seat is re-allotted to the appellant once again.
• The 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, at the material time, and this order will not be treated as a precedent.

CONCLUSION

The approach adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is benevolent and laudable. The Court cannot be oblivious to the legitimate expectation of COVID-19 warriors like the appellant to get fair treatment. The Court made it clear, invoking Article 142 of the constitution of India, and that this order will not be treated as a precedent. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the appellant to pursue higher studies.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement