Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SUJOY PAUL, J.
Dr. Sheetal Soni, W/o. Vivek Soni - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 20459 of 2023
Decided On : 08-09-2023
For the Petitioner: Sankalp Kochar.
For the Respondent: Lalit Joglekar.
Headnote:(A) M. P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 - Rule 6 - Doctrine of legitimate expectation - The petitioner sought study leave to pursue higher studies which was denied due to departmental exigencies. The court found permission to take the NEET exam did not equate to granting admission to the PG course. The authority's refusal was based on public interest and the need to maintain faculty levels as per norms mandated by the National Medical Commission. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 15, 22)
(B) Judicial review - The court held that administrative decisions concerning leave are bound by exigencies of service, and the threshold for judicial interference is high. Decisions made in public interest are given weight, and the expectation created cannot override institutional needs. (Paras 16, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Demonstrator/Tutor, was denied study leave to pursue higher studies despite fulfilling eligibility criteria due to the department's staffing issues. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The refusal of study leave was upheld, emphasizing the conflict between personal interest in education and public interest in maintaining educational standards. (Paras 18, 22)
Issues: Whether the legitimate expectation doctrine applies when departmental service needs conflict with personal aspirations. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that institutional requirements outweigh personal expectations; even a previously granted permission for exams does not impose an obligation to approve subsequent admissions. (Paras 11, 15)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application for study leave and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the denial of leave. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on legitimate expectation and public interest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. clarification on the scope of legitimate expectation. (Para 15 , 19) |
| 5. judicial precedent and reasoning for upholding administrative discretion. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
The conundrum in the instant case is relating to expectation of the petitioner to get study leave to pursue higher studies on the one hand and exigencies of the department while refusing the leave on the other. The quagmire is how to deal with this situation where a young doctor has a desire to equip herself with higher education and department is expressing its inability to grant her leave because of paucity of the doctors.
2. The petitioner while working as a Demonstrator/Tutor in Physiology Department in Government Medical College, Shahdol preferred an application dated 13-1-2023 (Annexure P/4) before respondent No. 2 for allowing her to fill-up the form of NEET PG, 2023. The Department by communication dated 19-1-2023 (Annexure P/5) accorded her permission to submit application for writing the examination of NEET PG, 2023. In this permission letter, it was made clear that permission has not been granted for taking admission in the PG Course.
3. The petitioner appeared in NEET PG, 2023 and obtained a score of 478/800 and rank of 24066. The petitioner then preferred an application dated 17-7-2023 seeking permission to participate in the counseling of NEET PG, 2023. In addition, the petitioner preferred representations dated 19-7-2023 and 20-7-2023 (Annexure P/8) praying for grant of education/study leave for a period of three years as she has completed 05 years of service and eligible for three years of education leave as per Rule 12(1)(6) of Adarsh Sewa Niyam (Niyam). The said Niyam were amended on 22-2-2021 (Annexure P/9). The said application of petitioner was rejected by impugned order dated 31-7-2023 and she it was informed that in view of norms prescribed by National Medical Commission (Commission) and the present shortage of medical teachers, her study leave application cannot be accepted. This order is called in question in this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution.
Contention of the petitioner :—
4. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law because while granting permission dated 19-1-2023 (Annexure P/5) to write the PG Examination, an impression was created that petitioner will be permitted to take admission in PG Course as well. Thus, legitimate expectation theory comes into play. In the rejection order, the respondents have not stated that decision is taken in ‘public interest’. As per the stand taken in the reply, there are four sanctioned posts of Demonstrator/Tutor, out of which one is lying vacant for want of suitable candidate. If the respondents have not filled-up the said post, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and cannot be deprived from the fruits of her selection in NEET PG, 2023 and the respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong in not filling up the vacant post. The deficiency of Demonstrator/Tutor can be taken care of by a person holding a higher post. The impugned order is not fair and reasonable. The department lost sight of the fact that if petitioner avails study leave and is equipped with a higher degree/knowledge, she will serve the department with better knowledge for a further period of almost three years.
5. To bolster the aforesaid submissions, heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021, Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., decided on July 15, 2021 and it is urged that the case of present petitioner is on a better footing
