Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Damini Sonker – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 11796 of 2022 & C.M. APPL. 49111 of 2022
Decided On : 22-03-2023
AIIMS - M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course - [AIIMS Act, 1956; All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956] - The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash the rejection of her request to rejoin the M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course and to appear for the final examination. The court found that the Petitioner's conduct resulted in an irreversible situation where she did not undergo the mandatory 7 months physical/hands-on training, and her resignation from the course was accepted by AIIMS. The court held that AIIMS had been extremely indulgent towards the Petitioner and every possible assistance was rendered to facilitate her for completing the course. The court also found no violation of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the other candidates were not similarly placed as the Petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner joined the M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course at AIIMS but did not complete it due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown. She sought permission to rejoin the course and appear for the final examination, which was rejected by AIIMS. The Petitioner approached the court seeking a direction to AIIMS to accept the withdrawal of her resignation and permit her to take the final examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner's conduct resulted in an irreversible situation where she did not undergo the mandatory 7 months physical/hands-on training, and her resignation from the course was accepted by AIIMS. The court held that AIIMS had been extremely indulgent towards the Petitioner and every possible assistance was rendered to facilitate her for completing the course. The court also found no violation of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the other candidates were not similarly placed as the Petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were whether AIIMS acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in rejecting the Petitioner's request to rejoin the M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course and appear for the final examination, and whether there was a violation of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner's conduct resulted in an irreversible situation where she did not undergo the mandatory 7 months physical/hands-on training, and her resignation from the course was accepted by AIIMS. The court found that AIIMS had been extremely indulgent towards the Petitioner and every possible assistance was rendered to facilitate her for completing the course. The court also found no violation of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the other candidates were not similarly placed as the Petitioner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash the rejection of her request to rejoin the M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course and to appear for the final examination. The Petitioner's participation in the examination, held in December, 2022, pursuant to interim orders of the court, will not create any equity and will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. AIIMS need not declare the result of the examination qua the Petitioner, which has been placed in a sealed cover.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash the memorandum dated 18.06.2021, 12.07.2021, 01.09.2021, 22.10.2021 and 04.07.2022 whereby the Respondent No.2 had rejected the Petitioner's request to allow the Petitioner to rejoin the M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course in Nuclear Medicine Dept. AIIMS;
(b) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to allow the Petitioner to appear for the final examination of M.S.C. Nuclear Medicine being held in December, 2022 or any future date;
(c) Direct the Respondent No.2 to grant of study leave to the Petitioner for completion of her M.S.c. in Nuclear Medicine."
2. Petitioner joined the two-years M.Sc. Nuclear Medicine Course in Nuclear Medicine Department, AIIMS/Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIMS') on 03.08.2019, but did not complete the same. Case set up by the Petitioner is that on account of Pandemic COVID-19 and the consequent lockdown imposed by the Government, she was unable to attend the course from 27.03.2020 upto 02.09.2020 due to lack of transportation facilities. The grievance of the Petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that AIIMS had acted arbitrarily and unreasonably firstly, by disallowing the Petitioner from appearing for the M.Sc. Final Exam in July, 2021 by extending the course from 31.07.2021 to 07.01.2022, despite the Petitioner submitting her thesis on time and secondly, in not accepting the withdrawal of her resignation, when only 3 examinations and one viva-voce remained for obtaining the M.Sc. Degree.
3. Facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition, shorn of unnecessary details are that after joining the M.Sc. Course on 03.08.2019, Petitioner regularly attended her classes until 27.03.2020 whereafter she was forced to take leaves due to the pandemic. It is stated that on 13.04.2020, Petitioner wrote to AIIMS expressing her inability to reach the department due to ongoing pandemic and the lockdown and requested vide a subsequent letter dated 09.06.2020 to exempt her from joining the course, till the situation changed.
4. On 30.06.2020, Memorandum was issued by AIIMS asking the Petitioner to explain why she was not attending the classes/duties despite availability of DTC buses as well as special buses arranged for commuting to AIIMS. By a letter dated 17.07.2020, Petitioner reminded the department that she had already informed by her earlier letters that she was unable to join the course due to lockdown. Petitioner subsequently joined back on 03.09.2020 and resumed her course.
5. In the meantime, on 21.08.2020, Petitioner appeared in the Computer Based Test ('C.B.T.') for appointment to the post of Technician (Radiology) in AIIMS, as there was no bar in applying for the said post during the M.Sc. course. On 29.10.2020, AIIMS issued an order regularizing 163 leaves taken by the Petitioner from 27.03.2020 to 02.09.2020 as also postponing her final examination from July, 2021 to December, 2021, simultaneously extending the M.Sc. registration upto 07.01.2022.
6. Petitioner avers that on 08.03.2021, she submitted her thesis and a month later on 05.04.2021, she cleared the C.B.T. Examination and received an offer letter to join as Technician (Radiology) within 60 days. As per Clause 14 of the offer of appointment, it was mandatory that the Petitioner submitted either a course completion certificate or certificate of discontinuation of the M.Sc. Course at the time of joining, failing which she would not be allowed to join the post and the offer of appointment was liable to be cancelled/withdrawn. Under Clause 2(C), a relieving order with acceptance of resignation from an employer was required to be submitted where a candidate was an employee in a Government Sector. Since the Petitioner had accepted the offer letter on 07.04.2021 to join the post of Technician (Radiology), by a letter dated 25.05.2021 she requested AIIMS to permit her to complete her academic tenure and appear in the final examinati
The court emphasized that discretionary remedies under Article 226 are for doing justice and correcting injustice and not the other way round. The court also highlighted the principle that courts sho....
The court ruled that the failure of AIIMS to clearly communicate eligibility criteria for admission led to unjust denial of admission to meritorious candidates, emphasizing the need for clarity in ac....
Admission criteria cannot be altered post-publication of eligibility requirements; disqualifications must be explicitly stated in the prospectus.
The court ruled that fragmented completion of required residency days at multiple institutions satisfies eligibility, given lack of explicit restrictions in the admission criteria, emphasizing the ne....
(1) Study Leave – No leave can be claimed as a matter of right.(2) Court cannot be oblivious to legitimate expectation of COVID-19 warriors (Doctors) to fair treatment, to enable them to pursue highe....
Academic institutions hold the authority to enforce attendance and training requirements for qualifications; writ courts have limited jurisdiction in these matters.
Admissions should not be cancelled without any wrongdoing or default on the part of the candidate, and the responsibility of the institution in granting admissions is emphasized.
The judgment established that mandamus lies only when there is a judicially enforceable right, and the absence of such a right precludes the issuance of mandamus.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
