DR. ROHIT KUMARversusSECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.

644                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    6 S.C.R. 644               [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A                            DR. ROHIT KUMAR
                                        v.
       SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021)
B                                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-
C
      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
D     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
E
      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
F     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
G
      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
H     governed, to enable them to pursue higher education and enhance
                                       644
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                   645
                      DELHI & ORS.

their educational qualifications – Appellant could not join PG           A
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
                                                                         B
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          C
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
                                                                         D
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.                                                                 E
      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-          F
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]                         G
      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,

                                                                         H
646            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     2021 with about 25,000 new cases per day and the consequential
      pressure on hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other medical
      establishments justify the apprehension which led to the policy
      decision of 20th October, 2020. 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
B
      review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
      [Para 20][652-F-G]
            3. 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
C     for duty, is neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of
      Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, this
      Court cannot be oblivious to the 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
D     them to pursue higher education and enhance their educational
      qualifications. The doctors with higher qualifications and special
      knowledge in specific areas would be an asset to the medical
      fraternity, as also to the society. [Paras 21, 22][652-H; 653-A-B]
            4. The number of new cases per day has dropped to less
E     than 100. It is reported that in most hospitals COVID-19 beds
      are now lying vacant. The application of the Appellant for Study
      Leave should, therefore, be reconsidered. The Appellant could
      not join the Post Graduate Course for no fault of his own, as his
      services were required in public interest, for the cause of
      humanity, to save lives. The admission to the Post Graduate
F     Course was closed on 31st January, 2021 and classes commenced
      soon thereafter. The Appellant continued to render service to
      the Government of NCT of Delhi, treating patients at the Deen
      Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. Now that the COVID-19 situation in
      Delhi is under control, the Government of NCT of Delhi should,
G     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 post graduate studies. [Paras 25, 26]
      [653-F-H; 654-A-B]
           5. There can be no question of any direction of this Court,
H     to admit the Appellant to the second semester directly, as
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                  647
                      DELHI & ORS.

suggested by appellant when he has not been able to attend a            A
single class of the first semester. Since one unfilled seat in the
Post Graduate Course in Paediatrics at the PGI Chandigarh, has
been carried over and re-advertised for the July, 2021 course,
no prejudice will be caused to any one, if that vacant seat is re-
allotted to the appellant once again. Unless the seat is re-allotted
                                                                        B
to the Appellant, and the Appellant is granted Study Leave by the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, he will be irreparably prejudiced.
[Para 29][654-F-G]
      National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah
      Koumudi and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 992
      – distinguished.                                                  C

      S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and
      Others (2019) SCC Online SC 1609 – referred to.
      6. The Appellant has not been able to take admission to
the MD Course in Paediatrics, which commenced in January, 2021,         D
in circumstances entirely beyond his control, in spite of being
selected for admission after successfully clearing the highly
competitive INICET 2020. Unfortunately, the Appellant was not
granted Study Leave from the concerned Respondents, for
reasons not attributable to him. The Appellant was not at fault.
But then PGI, Chandigarh was also not at fault. The Appellant           E
also approached the High Court promptly, well before the
admission was closed. Having regard to the circumstances in
which the Appellant has been declined Study Leave, it cannot
also be said that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted beyond
the parameters of law. Nevertheless, the Appellant has suffered         F
injustice, because of the denial of Study Leave, in that he has
been deprived of the opportunity to pursue higher studies, which
many other doctors have availed. It would be unfair to deny the
Appellant the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his efforts even
now, when the COVID-19 situation has improved and is in control,
only because the Respondents have not committed “apparent               G
breach of rules and regulations” in refusing the Appellant Study
Leave. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to the plight
of the Appellant. It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to

                                                                        H
648            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     the Appellant, when the Appellant had to make a personal sacrifice
      in the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity.
      [Paras 38, 39, 42][658-E-H; 659-A, G-H]
            7. Since the seat in the Post Graduate Course in PGI
      Chandigarh which remained unfilled due to the inability of the
B     Appellant to join has been carried over to the July 2021 session
      which is yet to commence, and re-advertised, this Court deems
      it appropriate to direct the PGI, Chandigarh, being the
      Respondent No. 3 to admit the Appellant to the post graduate
      course scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis of
      INICET 2020, which he has successfully cleared. The Respondent
C     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. These
D     directions are being passed in exercise of the power of this Court
      under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and
      circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the
      Appellant had cleared INICET 2020 held in November 2020 and
      had been offered admission to PGI, Chandigarh, but could not
      join as he was not released on Study Leave in view of the serious
E     COVID-19 situation prevailing in NCT of Delhi at the material
      time, and this order will not be treated as a precedent. [Paras 43,
      44][660-A-D]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2739
      of 2021
F
            From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 52 of 2021.
           Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv., Nitin Saluja, Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya,
      Ms. Swati Singh, Ms. Sasha Maria Paul, Advs. for the Appellant.
G           Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Anmol Chandan,
      Ms. Seema Bengani, Shiv Mangal Sharma, B. V. Balaram Das, Sudarshan
      Rajan, Sumant De, Ramesh Rawat, Mahesh Kumar, Hitain Bajaj, Rohit
      Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondents.

H
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                            649
                      DELHI & ORS.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 A
       INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
       Leave granted.
      2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against a final
judgment and order dated 12-02-2021 passed by a Division Bench of the             B
Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal, being L.P.A. No.52/2021, of the
Appellant against an order dated 02-02-2021 passed by the Single Bench
dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No.499 of 2021 filed by the
Appellant.
      3. The Appellant, a doctor, who joined service of the Government            C
of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, on 5th August 2014, is
presently posted as Medical Officer of the Emergency and Accidents
Department at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi.
       4. The Appellant has duly completed five years of regular and
continuous service with the Government of NCT of Delhi and is thus                D
eligible to avail Study Leave to pursue the post graduate course, in
accordance with the Directives and Guidelines of the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government of India issued vide O.M.A.12034/
0312012-CHS-V dated 2nd November, 2012, the relevant portion whereof,
is extracted hereinbelow:
                                                                                  E
       “1.CHS officer who has satisfactory completed period of
       probation and has rendered not less than five years regular
       service including the period of probation under the
       Government and is not due to reach the age of superannuation
       from Government service within five years from the date on
       which he is expected to return to duty after the expiry of the             F
       leave, is entitled to avail study leave under Rule 50 of CCS
       (leave) Rule 1072.”
        5. On or about 14th October 2020, the Appellant was duly granted
permission to apply for and appear at the INICET-2020, a highly
competitive examination for admission to the MD/MS courses in some                G
of the premier medical institutions of the country, such as All India Institute
of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, the Post Graduate Institute
of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, etc.
     6. The results of the INICET-2020 were declared on 28th
November, 2020. The Appellant successfully cleared the Examination                H
650            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     and was, accordingly called by PGI Chandigarh for counselling for
      admission to the MD/MS course, by a notice dated 24th December, 2020.
      The Appellant duly participated in the off-line counselling for the MD/
      MS course at PGI, Chandigarh on 29th December, 2020, and was allotted
      a seat in the MD course in Paediatrics.
B            7. The authorities of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital duly issued
      the required ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the Appellant to enable the
      Appellant to pursue the post graduate course in Paediatrics at PGI,
      Chandigarh. After completing all the requisite formalities, the Appellant
      applied to the Respondent No.1 for Study Leave as per the Rules, to
      enable him to join the MD course in Paediatrics at the PGI, Chandigarh.
C     In the meanwhile, on or about 20th October 2020, a policy decision was
      taken, not to grant any further Study Leave to the doctors working in the
      hospitals of the Government of NCT of Delhi, in view of the COVID-19
      pandemic.
           8. Another Office Order dated 22-10-2020 was issued by the
D     Government of NCT of Delhi, Health and Family Welfare Department
      (Medical Branch), which is extracted herein below for convenience: -
            “In view of the prevailing situation of COVID-19 in NCT of
            Delhi and the projections made by Experts about the expected
            increase in cases of COVID-19 during the period November-
E           December, 2020, it is not feasible, in public interest to spare
            the services of GDMOs, to pursue Post Graduation courses.
            GDMOs cannot be acceded to at this juncture.”
             9. By an order dated 22nd January 2021, the Respondent No.1
      rejected the application of the Appellant for Study Leave, having regard
F     to the policy decision taken by the Government on 20th October, 2020
      and the subsequent order dated 22nd October, 2020. On 31st January,
      2020, admission to the post graduate courses in PGI, Chandigarh, for the
      2020 session was closed, and the allotment of the Post Graduate seat to
      the Appellant was cancelled.
             10. The Appellant had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court
G
      challenging the action of the Respondent No. 1 in not granting Study
      Leave to the Appellant to enable him to join the post graduate course at
      PGI, Chandigarh. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Single Bench
      of the High Court, and an appeal therefrom, filed by the Appellant, has
      been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, by the judgment
H     and order impugned in this appeal.
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                         651
            DELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

      11. As observed above, even though the Appellant cleared INICET-         A
2020 and was selected for the post graduate course in PGI, a premier
medical institution, he was declined Study Leave by the Respondent
No.1 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential policy
decision adopted on 20th October 2020, not to grant Study Leave to
doctors working in Government hospitals in Delhi.
                                                                               B
       12. Ms. Geeta Luthra appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued
that the Appellant had arbitrarily been declined Study Leave whereas
many other doctors, similarly circumstanced as the Appellant, had been
granted Study Leave to pursue post graduate courses, even after the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
thereby discriminated against the petitioner.                                  C

       13. Ms. Luthra cited the instances of Dr. Dharmendra Kumar,
Dr. Vipul Pandey, Dr. Brijesh Patel, Dr. Avneesh Tripathi, Dr. Punit
Mishra who had admittedly been granted Study Leave in July/August/
September, when there were a large number of COVID-19 cases in
Delhi.                                                                         D

        14. Ms. Luthra argued that on 14th October 2020, when the
Appellant was granted permission to apply for and appear at the INICET-
2020, the number of new COVID-19 cases reported in the preceding 24
hours was 3324. However, in December/January /February, the daily
figure of new cases had declined substantially. There could, therefore,        E
be no justification in refusing Study Leave to the Appellant and depriving
him of the opportunity to pursue post graduate studies in a premier
institution.
      15. While it is true that admittedly numerous doctors named in the
SLP have been granted Study Leave during the COVID-19 pandemic,                F
when COVID-19 cases were on the rise, those doctors were granted
Study Leave before the policy decision of 20th October, 2020 and the
order dated 22nd October, 2020 referred to above. Our attention has not
been drawn to a single case of grant of Study Leave to a doctor of a
hospital under the Government of NCT, after the said policy decision.          G
       16. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 argued that the Respondent
No.1 had neither acted arbitrarily, nor discriminated against the Appellant,
in turning down the request of the Appellant for Study Leave. The order
of the Respondent No.1 in refusing Study Leave to the Appellant had to
                                                                               H
652             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     be taken in view of the Pandemic, with predictions of exponential rise in
      the number of COVID-19 CASES and the consequential policy decision
      taken on 20th October, 2020.
            17. Ms. Bhati argued that even though there may have been a
      decline in the number of fresh COVID-19 cases in December/January/
B     February, the policy adopted on 20th October, 2020 and the subsequent
      order dated 22nd October, 2020 had not been annulled, in view of
      predictions of the likelihood of a possible second wave and spurt in
      COVID-19 cases. The doctors of hospitals run by the Government of
      NCT, Delhi, could not, therefore, be spared for higher studies.
C            18. Ms. Bhati also argued that Study Leave could not be claimed
      as a matter of right and it was open to the Government to refuse any
      application for Study Leave, if the service of the concerned doctor was
      required in public interest. She submitted that the Respondent No.1 has
      acted within the parameters of law and has not committed any wrong in
      not allowing Study Leave to the Appellant.
D
             19. It may be true, as argued by Ms. Bhati, that no leave can be
      claimed as a matter of right. 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.
E     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.
             20. The policy decision is stated to have been prompted by
F     predictions of rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi. The
      exponential rise of COVID-19 cases in Delhi in April/May, 2021 with
      about 25,000 new cases per day and the consequential pressure on
      hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other medical establishments justify
      the apprehension which led to the policy decision of 20th October, 2020.
G     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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
             21. 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
H
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                           653
            DELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution   A
of India.
       22. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the 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 their educational             B
qualifications. Needless to mention that doctors with higher qualifications
and special knowledge in specific areas would be an asset to the medical
fraternity, as also to the society.
       23. The guidelines and directions of the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, as contained in the Order being O.M.A. 12034/0312012-            C
CHS-V dated 2nd November, 2012 entitles a Central Health Service
Officer who has satisfactorily completed probation and rendered not
less than five years of regular service, to avail Study Leave under the
CCS (Leave) Rules 1972, provided he is not due to attain the age of
retirement within 5 years from the date on which the officer is expected
to return to duty, and/or in other words, within five years from the date        D
on which his Study Leave ends.
       24. The policy decision taken on 20th October, 2020, not to grant
further Study Leave to doctors working in hospitals under the Government
of NCT of Delhi in apprehension of rise in COVID cases, is obviously a
temporary one. The policy cannot continue indefinitely irrespective of           E
changes in circumstances. The policy has necessarily to be reviewed
from time to time and relaxed and/or modified once there is decrease in
the number of COVID-19 cases in the NCT of Delhi.
       25. Thankfully, the COVID-19 situation in Delhi is now under
control. As on 14th July, 2021, that is, yesterday, there were total number      F
of 688 active COVID-19 cases, of whom about 250 were in home
isolation, as per news reports based on bulletins issued by the Health
Department of the Government. The number of new cases per day has
dropped to less than 100. It is reported that in most hospitals COVID-19
beds are now lying vacant. The application of the Appellant for Study            G
Leave should, therefore, be reconsidered.
       26. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the Appellant
could not join the Post Graduate Course for no fault of his own, as his
services were required in public interest, for the cause of humanity, to
save lives. The admission to the Post Graduate Course was closed on
                                                                                 H
654            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     31st January, 2021 and classes commenced soon thereafter. The Appellant
      continued to render service to the Government of NCT of Delhi, treating
      patients at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay 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
B
      able to pursue post graduate studies.
             27. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, appearing for PGI Chandigarh, submitted
      on instructions that candidates who had cleared the INICET 2020 and
      selected to a post graduate course in PGI joined the January, 2021 session.
      The students who joined the January 2021 session, which commenced
C     in January, 2021, have completed one semester and are now in the second
      semester. The admission to the next session, which is due to commence
      in July, 2021 will be made by conducting the INICET 2021.
             28. Mr. Rajan submits that INICET 2021, which was originally
      scheduled to be held on 16th June, 2021, has been postponed to 22nd July,
D     2021 on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. One unfilled seat of the
      MD course in Paediatrics, of the sponsored category, for the January
      2021 session, at PGI Chandigarh, which had not been filled up because
      of the inability of the Appellant to join, has been re-advertised for the
      July 2021 session and is to be filled up through INICET 2021.
E            29. Ms. Luthra’s submission that the Appellant be admitted in the
      January 2021 session cannot be accepted, since the classes commenced
      over six months ago and the students who were admitted to that session,
      have completed their first semester and entered the second semester.
      There can be no question of any direction of this Court, to admit the
F     Appellant to the second semester directly, as suggested by Ms. Luthra,
      when he has not been able to attend a single class of the first semester.
      The question is, whether the Appellant can be accommodated in the
      next academic session scheduled to commence in July, 2021. Since one
      unfilled seat in the Post Graduate Course in Paediatrics at the PGI
      Chandigarh, has been carried over and re-advertised for the July, 2021
G     course, no prejudice will be caused to any one, if that vacant seat is re-
      allotted to the appellant once again. Unless the seat is re-allotted to the
      Appellant, and the Appellant is granted Study Leave by the Respondent
      Nos. 1 and 2, he will be irreparably prejudiced.
           30. The question of whether a meritorious candidate, denied
H     admission to a medical course, can be accommodated in that course in
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                           655
            DELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

the following academic year, was considered by a three Judge Bench of            A
this Court in S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
and Others1. The Court held: -
         “29. However, the question is with respect to a student, a
         meritorious candidate for no fault of his/her has been denied
         admission illegally and who has pursued his/her legal rights            B
         expeditiously and without delay is entitled to any relief of
         admission more particularly in the courses like MBBS ….
         30. The aforesaid question is required to be considered only
         to the cases where (i) no fault in attributable to the
         candidate;(ii) the candidate has pursued her rights and legal           C
         remedies expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there is
         fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of
         rules and regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to be more
         meritorious then the last candidate who has been given
         admission.”
                                                                                 D
         31. In S. Krishna Sradha (supra) this Court directed as follows:-
         “33. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a
         meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission
         in MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no
         fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so
         as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer      E
         for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: (i) That
         in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at
         the earliest and without any 25 delay and that the question is with
         respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be
         made by the concerned court to dispose of the proceedings by            F
         giving priority and at the earliest. (ii) Under exceptional
         circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable
         to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right
         expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part
         of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and
         regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of    G
         admission which would violate the right of equality and equal
         treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule
         prescribed–30th September, is over, to do the complete justice,
         the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare
1
    (2019) SCC Online SC 1609                                                    H
656      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase
      the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats
      and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e.,
      within one month from 30th September, i.e., cut off date and 26
      under no circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in
      the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that
B
      such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and
      in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the
      Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a
      candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category
      who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious
C     candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have
      got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however,
      after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission
      is sought to be cancelled. (iii) In case the Court is of the opinion
      that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in
      the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of
D     the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and
      regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students
      and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such 27
      candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and
      without any delay,the court can mould the relief and direct the
E     admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic
      year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in
      the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case
      and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the
      management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to
      the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to
F     reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year,
      meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied
      admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year
      out of the seats allotted in the management quota. (iv) Grant of
      the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute
G     for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the
      Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious
      candidate who for no fault of his/her has 28 to lose one full
      academic year and who could not be granted any relief of
      admission in the same academic year. (v) It is clarified that the
      aforesaid directions pertain for Admission in MBBS Course only
H     and we have not dealt with Post Graduate Medical Course.”
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                         657
            DELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

        32. The judgment in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) was rendered             A
in the context of admission to the MBBS Course and not to a post
graduate course. However, in National Medical Commission vs.
Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others2, this Court held:-
         “11. As the dispute in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) pertained to
         admission to the undergraduate MBBS Course, this Court held           B
         that they have not dealt with the Post Graduate Medical
         Courses. Mr. Parameshwar argued that there is no reason
         why the logic behind the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha
         (supra) should not be made applicable to Post Graduate
         Courses. We find force in the said argument of Mr.
         Parameshwar. This Court was only dealing with the admission           C
         to the MBBS Course for which reason directions given in the
         said judgment were restricted to the MBBS Course. Directions
         issued in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) can be made applicable
         to admission to Post Graduate Courses as well.”
       33. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments of          D
this Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra)and in National Medical
Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others (supra) is
that in rare and exceptional cases, a meritorious candidate, who has
suffered injustice by reason of his/her inability to secure admission in a
medical course, whether under-graduate or post-graduate, due to no             E
fault of his/her own, who has taken recourse to law promptly, without
delay, might be granted relief of being accommodated in the same post
in the next session.
       34. Of course, the judgments in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) and
in National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi                    F
and Others (supra) are clearly distinguishable, in that the concerned
petitioners had wrongfully and illegally been denied admission by
disqualifying them. The Appellant on the other hand, cleared INICET-
2020 and was allotted a seat in the post-graduate course in Paediatrics.
PGI, Chandigarh had also acceded to the request of the Appellant to
extend the last date of admission. Unfortunately the Appellant was refused     G
Study Leave.
     35. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority for the issue of
law which is raised and decided. What is binding on the courts is what
2
    (2020) SCC Online SC 992                                                   H
658            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     the Supreme Court decides under Article 141 and not what the Supreme
      Court does under Article 142, in exercise of its power to do complete
      justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
             36. To quote V. Sudhish Pai from Constitutional Supremacy A
      Revisit:
B           “Judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read
            as Euclid’s theorems or as provisions of statute. Judicial
            utterances/pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a
            particular case. To interpret words and provisions of a statute
            it may become necessary for judges to embark upon lengthy
C           discussions, but such discussion is meant to explain not define
            Judges interpret statutes, their words are not to be interpreted
            as statutes. “
             37. All the conditions set forth in paragraph 30 of the judgment in
      S. Krishna Sradha (supra) quoted above, would not therefore, be
D     verbatim applicable in the distinguishable facts and circumstances of
      this case, for grant of the rare and extra-ordinary relief of admission to
      the same course in the next academic year. The broad principles laid
      down by this Court for admission to the same course in the following
      session, would have to be followed, to the extent feasible, to advance
      the cause of justice, but not with pedantic rigidity.
E
             38. In this case, the Appellant has not been able to take admission
      to the MD Course in Paediatrics, which commenced in January, 2021, in
      circumstances entirely beyond his control, in spite of being selected for
      admission after successfully clearing the highly competitive INICET 2020.
      Unfortunately, the Appellant was not granted Study Leave from the
F     concerned Respondents, for reasons not attributable to him. The Appellant
      was not at fault. But then PGI, Chandigarh was also not at fault. The
      Appellant also approached the High Court promptly, well before the
      admission was closed.
             39. Having regard to the circumstances in which the Appellant
G     has been declined Study Leave, it cannot also be said that the Respondent
      Nos. 1 and 2 have acted beyond the parameters of law. Nevertheless,
      the Appellant has suffered injustice, because of the denial of Study Leave,
      in that he has been deprived of the opportunity to pursue higher studies,
      which many other doctors have availed. It would be unfair to deny the
      Appellant the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his efforts even now,
H
DR. ROHIT KUMAR v. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF                              659
            DELHI & ORS. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

when the COVID-19 situation has improved and is in control, only                    A
because the Respondents have not committed “apparent breach of rules
and regulations”in refusing the Appellant Study Leave. This Court cannot
fold its arms and remain a mute spectator to the plight of the Appellant.
After all, “nothing rankles the heart more than a brooding sense of
injustice”.
                                                                                    B
       40. In S. Krishna Sradha (supra), the condition of “fault on the
part of the authorities and apparent breach of rules and regulations” for
grant of the relief of admission to the next session to a candidate wrongly
denied admission in an earlier session, is a sequel to and flows from the
condition that there should be no fault on the part of that candidate. The
Court has elaborated on the condition of “no fault of the candidate” to             C
ensure that relief is not claimed as a matter of right for any lapse or
infraction of rules on the part of the candidate by recourse to the plea of
the candidate not being at fault. To cite an example, an individual candidate
cannot as a matter of right claim relief when for inability to fulfil a condition
of admission for reasons such as computer crash at his end, inability to            D
raise funds within time for payment of admission fees, inability to adhere
to time schedules by reason of vehicular breakdown, illness, bereavement
etc. which may not be within the control of the candidate, as otherwise
it would be impossible for educational institutions to complete the
admission process, in time, when there are a large number of applicants.
                                                                                    E
       41. In this case, there has not been any lapse on the part of the
Appellant. The Appellant could not joint the post graduate course in PGI
Chandigarh for the January 2021 session for reasons attributable to the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though technically, the said Respondents cannot
be said to have acted illegally or in breach of rules and regulations, in
denying the Appellant Study Leave, in apprehension of rise in COVID-                F
19 cases and the exigency of availability of doctors in full strength, as
far as possible.
       42. The Appellant, who could not join the post graduate course,
due to the denial of Study Leave by the Government pursuant to a
legitimate policy decision and in response to the call of duty, cannot now          G
be denied relief on the hyper technical ground that the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 had not breached any rules or regulations. It would be a travesty
of justice to deny relief to the Appellant, when the Appellant had to
make a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause
of humanity.                                                                        H
660              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A            43. Since the seat in the Post Graduate 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, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the PGI,
      Chandigarh, being the Respondent No. 3 to admit the Appellant to the
      post graduate course scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis
B
      of INICET 2020, which he has successfully cleared. The 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
C     the Appellant shall not be declined.
             44. These directions are being passed in exercise of the power of
      this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and
      circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the Appellant
      had cleared INICET 2020 held in November 2020 and had been offered
D     admission to PGI, Chandigarh, but could not join as he was not released
      on Study Leave in view of the serious COVID-19 situation prevailing in
      NCT of Delhi at the material time, and this order will not be treated as a
      precedent.
             45. The appeal is, disposed of, accordingly. The impugned judgment
E     and order of the Division Bench of the High Court, and judgment and
      order of the Single Bench of the High Court dated 02.02.2021 are set
      aside.

      Devika Gujral                                             Appeal disposed of.

F




G




H