On 27th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the wide jurisdiction of the writ court to act upon equitable considerations, which Dr. Singhvi rightly reminded me of, is one that must be exercised judiciously.
It further held that, a balance has to be struck between the petitioner’s predicament, and the assessment of the concerned academic institutions that he is not properly qualified under the applicable Regulations to be treated as a fully trained super specialist in his chosen field of medicine.
Facts of the case:
In the present case the petitioner sought a direction upon the respondent no.1-Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University to permit him to sit for the end term examinations for the M.Ch. course, and a direction amending the eligibility criteria for the said examinations to exclude the period of leave due to COVID-19 or due to attending upon COVID-19 patients. The petitioner’s claim in this petition arises out of the fact that he has been rendered ineligible to take his end term examinations on account of excessive leaves and not having completed the requisite training period.
Contention of the petitioner:
The petitioner contented the following:
- Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, emphasised that the petitioner finds himself in this situation due to the fact that he was infected with COVID-19 in the course of duty.
- Dr. Singhvi submited that it is wholly unjust and unequitable for the leave taken as a consequence thereof, to be used against him in rendering him ineligible for the examinations.
- He submited that, if the petitioner is allowed to take the examinations by waiving his excessive leaves, he would complete the balance of his training period prior to issuance of the degree in his favour.
- Dr. Singhvi refered to the correspondence exchanged between the Institute and the University, to submit that the Institute had certified that the petitioner had completed all his assignments and practical assessments, and had also submitted his thesis on time.
- Dr. Singhvi submited that the discretion of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised in the present case on equitable considerations, even if the Regulations, strictly speaking, do not permit the relief sought.
Contention of the respondent:
Ms. Anita Sahani, learned counsel for the University, submitted the following:
- It was submitted that attendance in online classes cannot substitute for the bedside and clinical training required to be imparted to a super specialty candidate, such as the petitioner.
- It is also submitted that the petitioner is already a qualified doctor, Ms. Sahani emphasises that the case of the petitioner that his medical training would go waste if he is not permitted to take the examinations at this time, is incorrect.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The following observation has been made by the court:
1. The court was unable to accept the contention that writ court can condone this deficit on consideration of the fact that the petitioner contracted the infection while performing his duties as a doctor.
2. The Regulations, which remain unchallenged, do not permit the petitioner to take the examinations at this stage. Clauses 3 and 9 of Ordinance 16 specifically require the completion of training before the candidate takes the examinations. The grant of relief to the petitioner would be contrary to these requirements.
3. It was also submitted that the example of the PGIMER Prospectus cited by Dr.Singhvi is also inapposite, as PGIMER is not governed by the Regulations.
Read Judgment ;
0 Comments