DR. ROHIT KUMAR versus SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 15-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
644
DR. ROHIT KUMAR
v.
SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021)
JULY 15, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission – Post
graduate (PG) course – Appellant was a government doctor – He
was granted permission to apply for and appear at the INICET-
2020 for admission to MD/MS course – He successfully cleared the
examination and on 29.12.2020 was allotted a seat in the MD course
– Authorities duly issued NOC to pursue PG course – After
completing all the formalities, appellant applied to respondent no.1
for Study Leave – Meanwhile on 20.10.2020, a policy decision was
taken not to grant any further study leave to doctors working in the
government hospitals in view of the COVID-19 pandemic – Another
office order dated 22.10.2020 was issued by Government of NCT
of Delhi that in view of prevailing situation of COVID-19 in NCT of
Delhi, it was not feasible in public interest to spare services of
government doctors to pursue PG course – By order dated
22.01.2021, respondent no. 1 rejected the application of the
appellant for Study Leave in view of policy decision dated 20.10.2020
and order dated 22.10.2020 – On 31.01.2021, admission to PG
course for 2020 session was closed and allotment of PG seat to
appellant was cancelled – Appellant unsuccessfully filed writ petition
before High Court – On appeal, held: The policy decision not to
grant Study Leave to doctors for a certain length of time, in
apprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases to ensure the availability
of as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neither arbitrary, nor
discriminatory, nor violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India –
In any case the prudence of and/or justification for the policy
decision cannot be examined by the Court in exercise of its
extraordinary power of judicial review under Art.226 of the
Constitution of India – At the same time, there is legitimate
expectation of COVID-19 warriors like the appellant to fair
treatment, in conformity with the Service Rules by which they are
governed, to enable them to pursue higher education and enhance
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 644
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
their educational qualifications – Appellant could not join PG
course for no fault of his own, as his services were required in
public interest, for the cause of humanity, to save lives – He
continued to render service treating patients at the Government
Hospital – Now that the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is under
control, the Government of NCT of Delhi should, as a model
employer, make an endeavour to see that the appellant is not
deprived of the fruits of his success in the INICET 2020 and is able
to pursue PG studies – It would be a travesty of justice to deny
relief to the appellant, when he had to make a personal sacrifice in
the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity – Since the
seat in the PG 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,
the PGI, Chandigarh is directed to admit the appellant to the PG
course scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis of INICET
2020, which he had successfully cleared – Respondent No. 1 shall
re-consider the application of the appellant for Study Leave, taking
into consideration the decline in COVID-19 cases in NCT of Delhi,
and take a reasonable decision in favour of the appellant – Unless
there is a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases, the leave application
of the appellant shall not be declined – Constitution of India –
Art.142.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The concerned Respondents have apparently
acted within the parameters of law in declining Study Leave to
the Appellant in the teeth of COVID-19 pandemic, when doctors
were urgently required in Government hospitals, to treat COVID-
19 patients. The fact that some doctors may have been granted
Study Leave after the spread of COVID-19 cases in Delhi, did
not debar the Government from taking a policy decision not to
grant Study Leave to doctors any further, when exigencies
necessitated such a decision. [Para 19][652-D-F]
2. The policy decision is stated to have been prompted by
predictions of rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi.
The exponential rise of COVID-19 cases in Delhi in April/May,
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOV

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.