Study Leave During Pandemic: Supreme Court directs reconsideration of denial of study leave: Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (15 July 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 July 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 411

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a government employer deny study leave to a doctor, especially during a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a doctor who was denied study leave to pursue a post-graduate course, despite having cleared a highly competitive entrance exam. This judgment highlights the balance between public interest and the career aspirations of healthcare professionals. The bench comprised of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian. The judgment was authored by Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

Dr. Rohit Kumar, the appellant, joined the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi as a doctor on August 5, 2014. He was working as a Medical Officer in the Emergency and Accidents Department at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi. After completing five years of service, Dr. Kumar became eligible for study leave to pursue a post-graduate course, as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. He was granted permission to appear for the INICET-2020 exam, which he cleared successfully. He was then allotted a seat for an MD course in Paediatrics at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh.

The Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to Dr. Kumar. He then applied for study leave. However, on October 20, 2020, the Government of NCT of Delhi decided not to grant any further study leave to doctors due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision was formalized by an order on October 22, 2020. Consequently, Dr. Kumar’s application for study leave was rejected on January 22, 2021. The rejection led to the cancellation of his post-graduate seat at PGI, Chandigarh, as admissions closed on January 31, 2021.

Dr. Kumar filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the denial of study leave. The High Court dismissed his petition, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed Dr. Kumar’s writ petition, upholding the government’s decision to deny study leave based on the COVID-19 pandemic policy. The High Court’s Division Bench also dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Bench’s order. The High Court agreed with the government’s stance that the policy decision was necessary given the public health crisis. This led to Dr. Kumar’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following:

• The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India’s guidelines issued vide O.M.A.12034/0312012-CHS-V dated 2nd November, 2012, which states:
  
  “1. CHS officer who has satisfactorily 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 leave, is entitled to avail study leave under Rule 50 of CCS (leave) Rule 1072.”
• Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which governs study leave for government employees.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.

These provisions establish the eligibility criteria for study leave and the principle of equality in service matters. The guidelines specify that a Central Health Service officer with five years of regular service is entitled to study leave, provided they are not nearing retirement. The denial of study leave was challenged on the grounds that it violated these provisions and Article 14 of the Constitution.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Dr. Rohit Kumar):

• Dr. Kumar argued that the denial of study leave was arbitrary and discriminatory. He contended that many other doctors, similarly situated, had been granted study leave even after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • He cited instances of Dr. Dharmendra Kumar, Dr. Vipul Pandey, Dr. Brijesh Patel, Dr. Avneesh Tripathi, and Dr. Punit Mishra, who had been granted study leave in July, August, and September 2020, when COVID-19 cases were high in Delhi.

• He highlighted that on October 14, 2020, when he was permitted to apply for the INICET-2020, the number of new COVID-19 cases was 3324. However, in December/January/February, the daily figures had declined substantially. Therefore, there was no justification for refusing his study leave.

• He argued that the denial of study leave deprived him of the opportunity to pursue post-graduate studies in a premier institution, despite his merit.

Respondent’s Arguments (Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.):

• The respondents argued that they had not acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily. The decision to deny study leave was taken in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the predictions of an exponential rise in cases.

  • They referred to the policy decision of October 20, 2020, and the order of October 22, 2020, which restricted the grant of study leave to doctors in government hospitals.

• They contended that even though there was a decline in fresh COVID-19 cases in December/January/February, the policy adopted on October 20, 2020, had not been annulled due to the possibility of a second wave.

• They argued that study leave could not be claimed as a matter of right and that the government was entitled to refuse such leave if the services of the concerned doctor were required in public interest.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the denial of study leave to the appellant, a government doctor, was justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s policy decision, and whether such denial was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [ (2019) SCC Online SC 1609]* to hold that a meritorious candidate who has been denied admission due to no fault of their own can be accommodated in the next academic year.
• The Supreme Court relied on National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others [(2020) SCC Online SC 992]* to extend the principles laid down in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) to post-graduate medical courses.
• The Court considered the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Rule 50 of the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 to understand the eligibility criteria for study leave, but noted that these rules could be temporarily overridden in the public interest during a pandemic.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, balancing the need for public health safety with the rights and aspirations of individual doctors. The court recognized the government’s concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to have doctors available for duty. However, it also emphasized the importance of fair treatment and the legitimate expectation of doctors to pursue higher education. The court noted that the policy decision to deny study leave was a temporary measure and needed to be reviewed as the situation improved.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations, such as the COVID-19 situation and the availability of doctors, and legal considerations, such as the right to equality and the rules governing study leave.

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as strictly upholding the government’s policy, but rejected them in favor of a more balanced approach that recognized the rights and aspirations of doctors.

The Supreme Court held that while the government’s decision to deny study leave was understandable given the pandemic, it was a temporary measure that needed to be reviewed as the situation improved. The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The appellant had a legitimate expectation to avail study leave as per the service rules.
• The policy decision was a temporary one and could not continue indefinitely.
• The COVID-19 situation in Delhi had improved, warranting a reconsideration of the policy.
• The appellant had been denied the opportunity to pursue higher studies despite his merit.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“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 discussions, but such discussion is meant to explain not define. Judges interpret statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.”

“nothing rankles the heart more than a brooding sense of injustice”

“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 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Government policies, especially those affecting career prospects, need to be reviewed regularly and cannot be indefinite.
• The legitimate expectations of employees, particularly those in essential services, should be balanced with public interest.
• Meritorious candidates should not be deprived of opportunities for higher education due to circumstances beyond their control.
• Courts can provide relief to candidates who have suffered injustice due to denial of opportunities despite no fault of their own.
• The principles laid down in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) can be extended to post-graduate medical courses.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh was directed to admit the appellant to the post-graduate course scheduled to commence in July 2021, based on his INICET 2020 score.
• The Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to reconsider the appellant’s application for study leave, taking into account the decline in COVID-19 cases, and to make a reasonable decision in favor of the appellant, unless there was a substantial rise in COVID-19 cases.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the government can take policy decisions in the public interest, such decisions must be temporary and should be reviewed as circumstances change. The court emphasized that the legitimate expectations of employees, especially those in essential services, should be balanced with public interest. This judgment also reiterates that the principles laid down in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) can be extended to post-graduate medical courses, providing relief to meritorious candidates who have been denied opportunities due to no fault of their own. There was no change in the previous position of law but the court reiterated the importance of balancing public interest with individual rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Delhi High Court. The court directed PGI Chandigarh to admit Dr. Rohit Kumar to the post-graduate course in Paediatrics for the July 2021 session. The Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to reconsider his application for study leave, keeping in mind the improved COVID-19 situation. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing public interest with the rights and legitimate expectations of individuals, particularly in the context of public health emergencies.

Category

• Service Law
  • Study Leave
  • Government Employees
  • Public Interest
• Constitution of India
  • Article 14, Constitution of India
• Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
  • Rule 50, Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972

FAQ

Q: Can a government employer deny study leave to a doctor during a pandemic?

A: Yes, a government employer can deny study leave during a pandemic if it is in the public interest, but such policies should be temporary and reviewed as the situation improves.

Q: What should a doctor do if their study leave is denied?

A: A doctor can challenge the denial of study leave in court, especially if the denial is arbitrary or discriminatory, and if the doctor is otherwise eligible for such leave.

Q: Can a meritorious candidate be accommodated in a medical course in the next academic year if they were denied admission in the current year?

A: Yes, in rare and exceptional cases, a meritorious candidate who has been denied admission due to no fault of their own can be accommodated in the next academic year.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case?

A: The judgment highlights the importance of balancing public interest with the rights and legitimate expectations of individuals, particularly in the context of public health emergencies. It also reiterates the need for government policies to be temporary and reviewed regularly.