ROHIT KUMAR Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present letters patent appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2nd February, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) 499/2021 [hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned decision'], whereby the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the Appellant, has declined to interfere with the rejection of Appellant's application for grant of study leave and relieving orders from the Respondent No. 1 (Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi) and 2 (Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi), inter alia on the ground that the decision has been taken at the highest level in the Government and this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over such decision.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the Appellant is working as a 'Medical Officer' with the Department of Emergency and Accidents, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi (which is under Respondent No. 2). On 14th October, 2020, he was granted permission to apply for and appear as a sponsored candidate in the entrance examination 'INI CET 2020-21' for admission to post graduate medical courses of, inter alia, Respondent No. 3 (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh). He cleared the examination by securing all India ranking of 15270 with 77.186 percentile. Thereafter, pursuant to counselling with Respondent No. 3, he was provisionally selected for the course of MD (Paediatrics) and was requested to join the session from 1st January, 2021. Appellant applied for 'study leave' to pursue the said course from 15th January, 2021 to 14th January, 2023 (three years). The said letter was forwarded and recommended by the HOD (Casualty), Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. However, Appellant's request was declined, based on a circular/order dated 22 nd October 2020 issued by Respondent No. 1 to the effect that since number of cases relating to COVID-19 was expected to increase in the month of November-December, 2020, requests for grant of study leave cannot be allowed. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 499/2021 before this Court, seeking directions to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to sanction the study leave and for issuance of a relieving order. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the Appellant as well as the response of the Respondents and dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned decision.

(3.) Aggrieved with the impugned decision, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the decision of Respondent No. 1 rejecting study leave suffers from arbitrariness, unreasonableness, non-application of mind and is based on conjunctures, which are not borne from the statistics relating to COVID-19 pandemic situation in the State of Delhi. She further submits that earlier, the Government of NCT of Delhi had issued a circular/order dated 9th July, 2020 restricting grant of study leave, but despite that, eleven doctors were permitted to go on study leave in similar circumstances, in a clear departure from the directions contained in the said circular. Therefore, the denial of leave to the Appellant on the basis of the subsequent order dated 22 nd October, 2020, which is pari materia to the earlier circular, is not justified. It was incumbent upon the State to review its policy decisions in December, 2020, since the projections of the COVID-19 cases for the months of November-December, 2020 did not match with the ground reality. Nevertheless, even when cases were on the rise in the months of April to July, it did not come in the way of the Government to grant study leave to similarly placed aspirants/doctors. The situation was worse back then, but has now vastly improved and this can be gauged from the fact that the numbers of beds occupied by and assigned for COVID patients in the Hospitals have been de-escalated. Respondent No. 1 ought to have taken into account the improved COVID-19 situation in the country prior to taking the impugned decision. She further argues that since the impugned decision of Respondent No. 1 is grossly unreasonable, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The COVID-19 situation cannot outweigh the opportunity of the Appellant to pursue higher education. The Appellant has got once in a lifetime opportunity, as Respondent No. 3 institute is amongst the top three institutes in India to pursue post-graduation in medicine. The pass percentage of clearing INI CET Examination and getting a particular course is less than 12%, and since the Appellant has dedicated five years of his life and managed to clear the examination, where more than 80,000 candidates appeared, the Respondent No. 1 should not have denied the request of the Appellant.