Read Time: 05 minutes

Supreme Court in its judgment dated July 15, said indefinite continuation of a policy decision despite change in circumstances cannot be permitted.

Court was hearing an appeal by a doctor, posted as Medical Officer at DDU Hospital, New Delhi.

Appellant had qualified the eligibility criteria for MD/MS at PGI Chandigarh, however, on October 20, 2020, Government of NCT of Delhi issued a notification restraining Study leave to doctors working in Government hospitals, in view of COVID 19 pandemic.

A Division Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, while allowing the appeal, said,

"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.

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."
- Supreme Court

This 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’

Reliance was placed on S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2019) SCC Online SC 1609 and National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, (2020) SCC Online SC 992.

It emerges from the aforementioned cases that in rare and exceptional cases, where a meritorious candidate, who has suffered injustice by reason of his or her inability to secure admission in a medical course, whether UG or PG, due to no fault of his or her own, who has taken recourse to law promptly, without any delay, might be granted relief of being accommodated in the same post in the next session, Court noted.

The appellant could not take admission to MD Paediatrics course for circumstances beyond his control, in spite of being selected for admission after successfully clearing the highly competitive INICET – 2020, the bench further said.

“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,” Court conclusively directed.

Case Title: Dr. Rohit Kumar v. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi