No study leave for Delhi Doctor to pursue MD Pediatrics at PGI
Delhi: Dismissing the plea as infructuous, the Delhi High Court has refused the challenge against the Delhi government's decision of not granting study leave to a doctor for pursuing MD pediatrics at PGI Chandigarh.
The high court has clarified that it cannot assume the role of an appellate authority against a decision taken at the highest level of the government.
The high court made the judgment while considering a plea filed by the petitioner who sought a direction against the Delhi government to grant him study leave for pursuing an MD course in pediatrics from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER).
The petitioner submitted that he satisfied the criteria laid down for grant of study leave in the office memorandum dated November 02, 2012. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the required permissions from the authorities applied for the INICET-2020 examination, which he cleared. He secured a rank of 15270 from amongst 80000 candidates, who appeared.
The petitioner, on being successful, attended the offline counseling for MD/MS course at PGI, was allotted a seat in MD (Pediatrics) course. The DDU hospital where the petitioner is working even issued the required certificate and NOC to the petitioner. The certificate clearly states that the hospital did not need a substitute for the petitioner.
However, after completing due formalities, when the petitioner submitted his study leave as per the Rules, on December 31, 2020, the respondents (Lt Governor of Delhi) deliberately delayed in granting the same to the petitioner, the counsel contended.
In the meantime, the PGI extended the last date for accepting the seat allotment to the petitioner till January 18, 2021 with a condition that in case, the petitioner fails to get the study leave by then from the concerned authority, in that case, it shall cancel the seat and allot the same to some other candidate.
It was only on his visit to the secretariat on January 08, 2021 that he came to know that his application has not been forwarded. He was orally informed that he has not been granted study leave on an account of COVID-19, the counsel submitted.
It was further contended that denying study leave to the petitioner on account of COVID-19 is untenable since the data released by the government itself reveals the situation of COVID-19 with regard to the management of pandemic and availability of beds in Delhi hospitals have improved considerably in the last couple of weeks and recently 326 Doctors have been freshly recruited as Medical Officers by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
The counsel further submitted that similarly placed Doctors were granted study leave at the time when the number of COVID cases were at the peak and the maximum number of beds were assigned for COVID patients in the hospital. She stated that in the DDU hospital, there are twenty (20) beds, which are vacant as of date, so the reasoning given by respondents 1 and 2 for not granting the study leave due to COVID-19 is clearly an untenable reason.
The submission was contended by the counsel for the government, where she stated that the government servant is not entitled to get a study leave as a matter of right. Chapter VI, Rule 50 of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 deals with grant of study leave to a government servant. As per the said Rule, the study leave may be granted to a Government servant with due regard to exigencies of public service. Even though a Medical officer may be granted study leave for prosecuting a course of post-graduate study in Medical Science but, in the exigencies of services the Competent Authority may deny the same.
The Counsel for the government further submitted that in the present situation wherein the COVID19 pandemic is spreading throughout the country, the only exigency in public service would be to serve the COVID-19 patients. It was stated that the cases of COVID-19 pandemic is still reported to various hospitals and it cannot be said that the pandemic is over.
The counsel then relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 2009 (15) SCC 168, in support of her submission that the leave cannot be availed as a matter of right. According to her, the said case, was also of a Doctor who was refused the leave on the ground that, there was a shortage of Doctors and which the Supreme Court held that the matters fall in the category of 'administrative exigencies' and Courts cannot sit in appeal thereon.
The Supreme Court, in that order, had clarified:
Even on the case of discrimination, it is for the Administration/Management to take into account the contingencies that may arise in the course of administration. The services of an employee may be required in a given case on more emergent basis vis- a-vis other employees. In such cases the services rendered by an employee, his seniority, the nature of work which he is required to do, his responsibilities etc. are required to be taken into account while taking decision on such applications.
After considering the submission of both the parties, the court observed, " It is clear that the Courts, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision taken by the administration / management. Suffice would it be to state, that the decision has been taken, giving due regard to the exigencies, which may arise in the course of administration."
While accepting the medico as a meritorious student, the court further added, that the student has a legitimate expectation to acquire a higher qualification and advance in his career " but at the same time, as an employee working in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, is bound by the Rules framed by the Government i.e. Rule 50 of the Leave Rules clearly stipulates that the grant of study leave is not a matter of right, as the same shall be granted to the government servant with due regard to the exigencies of public service."
Finally, the single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao ordered that
I note that it is the submission of Mrs. Ahlawat that the case of the petitioner is not a solitary case as there are many other Doctors, who have also applied for grant of study leave shall seek similar benefit is appealing. 19. In view of my discussion above, this Court is of the view that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) when the decision has been taken at the highest level in the Government, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over such a decision. In the facts of this case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents not to grant study leave to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
To view the judgment, click on the following link:
Next Story