Denied: No exam relief for MCh doctor who took 200 plus medical leaves during COVID pandemic
New Delhi: Observing that the requirements of training and attendance, particularly in the matter of professional courses, are beyond the remit of the court, the Delhi High Court recently denied condoning the 'excessive leaves' taken by a doctor by allowing him appear in the end-term examination of the super specialty course that he is currently pursuing.
Such observation has come from the High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan while it was considering the plea of a doctor who was compelled to take extra leaves on account of contracting Covid-19 while treating patients.
"The requirements of training and attendance, particularly in professional courses of this nature, are generally beyond the remit of the writ court. Academic institutions are generally best placed to adjudge these issues, and their assessment is vulnerable to interference only if vitiated by manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The view taken by the University in the present case cannot be so characterised," it stated.
However, the bench clarified that the court's decision did not emanate from a lack of gratitude for the service rendered by doctors during the pandemic, but from the limitations under the regulations governing the course, adds PTI.
The petitioner doctor was working with the burns and plastic surgery department of a medical institute here and pursuing the three-year M Ch degree course.
Since a candidate was permitted to take only a total of 102 days as leave during the three years, the petitioner was rendered ineligible to sit for the end-term examination after he availed 226 days of leave, 194 days being medical leave due to Covid-19.
Also Read: Doctors move HC against Delhi Govt order to mark unvaccinated employees 'on leave'
The institute told the high court that the applicable regulations, that is the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 by the erstwhile Medical Council of India as well as its own ordinances, do not provide for any condonation of excess leaves.
The judge said that the petitioner is a senior resident seeking a super-specialty qualification which is principally earned by participating in clinical activity and therefore, the "training requirement cannot be divorced altogether from the question of excessive leave".
"The petitioner was compelled, by reason of his illness, to take approximately six months' leave from July 2020 to January 2021, which is much higher than the permitted maximum. Where the training is largely achieved on the job, the training requirement cannot be divorced altogether from the question of excessive leave. To the extent that the petitioner availed of excessive leave, howsoever legitimate the cause, his super-specialty training remains yet incomplete in terms of the Regulations and the Ordinance," the court said.
The court added that a balance has to be struck between the petitioner's predicament, and the assessment of the academic institutions concerned that he is not properly qualified under the applicable regulations.
"The requirements of training and attendance, particularly in professional courses of this nature, are generally beyond the remit of the writ court. Academic institutions are generally best placed to adjudge these issues, and their assessment is vulnerable to interference only if vitiated by manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The view taken by the University in the present case cannot be so characterised," it stated.
"Despite much sympathy with the situation in which the petitioner finds himself, I have come to the conclusion that he cannot prevail. This conclusion does not emanate from any lack of gratitude for the service rendered by doctors and other healthcare professionals in the course of this pandemic, but from the limitations of the writ court in the face of expert opinion regarding the conditions which the Regulations, and the University's Ordinances, impose," it said.
