Supreme Court On Study Leave by a Doctor During Covid-19

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Dr. Rohit Kumar v. Secretary, Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 468, wherein the Supreme Court discussed whether a doctor could pursue higher studies at the time of Covid-19 Pandemic or not.

 

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant, who is a doctor and fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for availing Study Leave to pursue post-graduate studies, applied for a Post-Graduate Course for which he was duly granted permission. The Appellant cleared the Examination and was allotted M.D. (Paediatrics) Seat. Even the Hospital where the Appellant was working granted him permission to pursue the said course. However, vide Order dated 20.10.2020, a policy decision was taken, not to any further Study Leave to the doctors working in Delhi Hospitals, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and its expected increase. Due to this, the Application of the Appellant to pursue the course was rejected and resultantly, his seat allotment got cancelled. Hence, the Appellant knocked the doors of the Court.

 

Now, let us discuss the observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court applied the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations to hold that it cannot remain oblivious to the plight of Covid-19 Warriors like the Appellant who merely expect fair treatment and compliance of the Service Rules, that enables them to pursue education. According to the Court, such qualifications with the doctors is an asset to the society.

 

Secondly, the Court cited an Office Order by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare that entitles the Appellant to avail Study Leave under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

 

Thirdly, the Court opined that the policy decision to not to grant leave to the doctors during Covid-19 Pandemic is a temporary one and such policy cannot continue indefinitely when there is a change in circumstances and as of now, most covid-19 hospital beds are lying empty.

 

Fourthly, the Court observed that “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” and as a model employer, the Delhi Government should make efforts to ensure that the Appellant is able to pursue his course.

 

Fifthly, the Court perused the record and found out that one seat that was to be allotted to the Appellant for the PG Course is lying vacant and it observed that “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.”

 

Sixthly, the Court cited the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609, wherein in a similar factual matrix, wherein four important guidelines were laid down to ascertain if a MBBS Candidate is entitled from the Court. The four guiding principles are: -

 

a. No fault attributable to the candidate.

b. No delay in pursuing legal remedies.

c. There is fault on part of the authorities.

d. The candidate in question is more meritorious than the last admitted candidate.

 

Thereafter, in the case of National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992, these guidelines were made applicable to PG candidates as well. According to the Court, even though the judgments just discussed could be distinguished on facts, yet the fact remains that the Appellant suffered injustice because of denial of Study Leave for no fault of his.

 

Seventhly, the Court observed that “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” and “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.”

 

And lastly, the Court elucidated the meaning of “no fault” in the context of the present case and explained that “no fault” cannot mean non-fulfilment of a condition for admission due to a reason that was beyond the control of the Appellant such as a Computer Crash, inability to adhere to time schedule etc.

 

Therefore, in light of the above, the Hon’ble Court held that there has not been any lapse on the part of the Appellant and directed the Respondent to re-consider the Application of the Appellant for Study Leave in light of declining Covid-19 Cases in Delhi and take a reasonable decision in favour of the Appellant. The Court also directed that unless there is a substantial rise in the number of Covid-19 cases, the Application of the Appellant shall not be declined. Interestingly, the Court also observed that the Order passed in the instant case will not be treated as a precedent and is passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

 

Those were the observations of the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUSION

 

This is definitely a welcome judgment. The decision by the State Governments to deny doctors and nurses to pursue higher studies is most deplorable and condemnable. Non-medicos dictating to medical professionals about the severity of a disease is something that was unheard until now. But we are living in such pathetic times in terms of State Administration that the State could do anything and everything to curb the rights of its people to satisfy its petty ego. I hope that good sense prevails on the bureaucracy and the politicians of this country, so that they stop harassing the Covid-19 Warriors.