The SC ruled that no matter how the situation changes, the policy of refusing to provide study permits to doctors working in hospitals under the Delhi NCT government due to concerns about the increase in COVID cases cannot continue indefinitely.
Once the no. of COIVD-19 cases drops, the policy must be revised and relaxed and or/changed from time to time. The court composed of judges Indira Banerjee v. Ramasubramaniam is assisting a person who could not be approved and respected PG because he was refused to attend the course.
Dr. Rohit Kumar, who appealed to the SC, served as a doctor in the emergency room of Dean Dayal Upadhyay Hospital in New in Delhi. He approved IICET2020 and was selected as a world-class doctor. The medical institution PGI conducts postgraduate study. But the Delhi government rejected his study permit. Due to the COIVD 19 pandemic and the political decision not to issue study permits to doctors working in Delhi Public Hospitals, the authorizes were unable to approve hospitalization. Therefore, he filed a motion to appeal the lawsuit to the Delhi High Court. He was not granted a study permit so that he could enter the graduate school of PGI in Chandigarh. Since the HC rejected this appeal, it turned to the SC.
In its appeal, SC made it clear that the political decision to not to grant doctors a study permit for a period of time out of fear of the increase of COVID-19 cases is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory or violated article 14 of the Indian Constitution.“At the same time, this court cannot ignore the reasonable expectation of COVID-19 fighters like the complainant to be treated fairly in accordance with the service regulations applicable to them, so that they can complete higher education and improve their education qualification”, Added that doctors with higher qualification and expertise in specific fields will benefit the medical community and society.When the court assisted the complainant with reference to the qualification stipulated in article 142 of the basic law, it also found that:
The complainant was unable enter graduate school because he was denied admission. The defense was refused on technical grounds, which are defendants 1 and 2 did not violate any rules and regulations. When the complainant 16 had to make personal sacrifices for the entire public interest to serve the cause of mankind, rejecting the complainant’s appeal would be an imitation of fairness.