Summary
The Court found no arbitrariness in Delhi’s temporary pandemic policy refusing doctors study leave, but held that it required review as circumstances improved. Exercising Article 142 expressly without creating a precedent, it directed admission of the appellant to the carried-over vacant paediatrics seat at PGI Chandigarh in July 2021 on his INICET 2020 result. His study-leave request had to be reconsidered favourably and could not be refused unless COVID-19 cases substantially rose.
Issues
- Whether the temporary pandemic study-leave policy was arbitrary or discriminatory.
- Whether exceptional relief could preserve the doctor’s admission opportunity despite no illegality by the employer or institution.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaEarlier leave grants preceding the policy did not establish discrimination, and the temporary refusal policy served the legitimate need to retain doctors during the pandemic. (¶¶ 15, 19, 20, 21, 24)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaCase-specific admission and leave-reconsideration directions were issued to remedy the appellant’s loss of opportunity, expressly without precedential effect. (¶¶ 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
Held
- Study leave could not be claimed as an absolute right. The employer lawfully adopted a temporary policy responding to anticipated medical demand; no instance of a post-policy leave grant establishing unequal treatment was shown. That policy could not continue indefinitely regardless of changing circumstances and required periodic review. (¶¶ 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Direct admission into the second semester of the January 2021 session was refused because the appellant had attended none of the first semester. However, his originally allotted sponsored seat remained vacant and had been carried over and re-advertised for the July session, enabling relief without displacing another candidate. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 43)
- The appellant had qualified, secured selection and approached the court promptly, but remained at work in the public interest. The employer and institution had not acted illegally. In these exceptional circumstances, the absence of an official breach did not prevent tailored relief; the Court did not make every involuntary failure to meet admission requirements a ground for accommodation. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- PGI was directed to admit him to the July 2021 course on his INICET 2020 qualification. The employer was directed to reconsider study leave reasonably in his favour and not decline it unless cases substantially rose. These Article 142 directions were expressly declared not to be a precedent, and the High Court judgments were set aside. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court judgments set aside, admission directed and favourable study-leave reconsideration ordered on the stated condition. Article 142 relief expressly non-precedential.