PG Diploma admission at AIIMS Rishikesh: Doctors move SC seeking NOC, challenging State Policy allowed
New Delhi: Seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government to get admission at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Rishikesh, a bunch of doctors hailing from Uttar Pradesh has approached the Apex Court.
However, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and Ajay Rastogi noted that the NOC was not being given by the State because of a policy decision taken due to the Covid-19 situation. Observing that the petitioners had not challenged the policy, the bench allowed to withdraw the writ petition and challenge the policy itself.
As per the latest media report by India Legal Live, the petitioners are designated as medical officers in Uttar Pradesh and they want to pursue higher studies in AIIMS Rishikesh. However, after clearing the written examination, the doctors found out that in order to pursue PG Diploma Course at AIIMS Rishikesh, they need to submit NOC/Sponsorship Certificate which the State Government was not issuing.
Alleging that they are deprived of their right to equal opportunity to take admission in AIIMS Rishikesh, the doctors approached the Apex Court seeking the following reliefs:
During the hearing of the case, when the Court asked the counsel for the State if the doctors did sit as sponsored candidates, the AAG of Uttar Pradesh submitted that they were not sponsored candidates. It was further submitted on the behalf of the court that the doctors appeared for the written examination without permission.
Following this, Justice Sinha observed that the doctors want to go to an institute of repute and not anywhere else and such a diploma will carry weight, compared to the state institute.
As a response, the counsel for the State submitted that it is a policy decision of the State. According to the policy, the doctors cannot be allowed to be granted study leaves during COVID times as it would create problems. It was further submitted on the behalf of the State that the petitioners had not challenged the policy decision in the petition.
Taking note of the submission, the Court noted, as reported by India Legal Live, "We have been informed that you are not sponsored. You did not apply as a sponsored candidate and went on your own. The state says they have taken a policy decision so that state doctors don't leave now so that services are available. It is better you withdraw this and challenge the said policy before the High Court."
When the counsel for the petitioners pointed out that last year he was allowed under the same circumstances, the bench pointed out that last year India didn't enter lockdown on March 17.
"UP does not state that COVID is the reason. All are sponsored candidates of the policy. Even Uttarakhand policy came in January for candidates who had cleared the exam," submitted the counsel for the petitioner Senior Adv Siddhartha Dave.
However, the Court allowed the petition to be withdrawn with the liberty to challenge the policy decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government and noted,
"We permit you to withdraw with liberty to approach the High Court and challenge the policy. Leave is sought to withdraw the writ petition to challenge the policy document. The writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with the above liberty. We request the high court to consider the matter expeditiously."