Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil Lal vs Medical Council Of India And Others on 21 December, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012
Date of decision : 21.12.2012
Sahil Lal .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Medical Council of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate
for MCI.
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner is young boy, who is studying in the MBBS course at Pandit B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak. He has approached this Court through the present writ petition praying for direction to quash communication dated 22.11.2012, Annexure P-4 and for directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to issue requisite 'No Objection Certificate' for migration of the petitioner.
The petitioner was admitted to the course in August 2011. First Professional Examination was conducted in the College in Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 2 August 2012. The result of the First Professional Examination was declared on 13.09.2012. The petitioner was declared pass. The petitioner complains that he is threatened with false allegations of use of unfair means, which as per the petitioner are made due to personal vendetta of certain faculty members working with respondent No. 3/college.
The petitioner claims to be a son of renowned doctor, who has been decorated with Presidential Awards. Due to the allegations made, the petitioner has suffered a mental agony and has become patient of Stress Disorder. In fact, the petitioner is diagnosed by the doctor to be suffering from Acute Stress Disorder. The doctors have, accordingly, advised change of academic environment for the petitioner. The medical record in this regard is annexed with the petition.
Certificate, Annexure P-1, is issued by Fortis Hospital, Noida, which shows that Detailed Clinical Examination, Mental Status Examination of the petitioner was done. The findings were suggestive of Acute Stress Disorder. The petitioner has been put on regular medication and psychological counselling, to help him to deal with stress.
Yet another certificate is placed on record from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi in which it is recommended that the petitioner requires immediate change in academic environment to prevent serious threat to his mental and physical health as well as threat of self or others' injuries. The petitioner pleads that the atmosphere at the respondent-college is not conducive for his stay at Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 3 the college and he needs change for sake of his well being.
On the basis of medical report and his health condition, the petitioner applied for migration by submitting an application on 09.11.2012 before respondents No. 2 and 3. The said application has been made on prescribed proforma and is accompanied by requisite fee. Respondent No. 1, MCI requires 'No Objection Certificate' from the receiving as well as relieving colleges and the respective Universities. This fact is evident from the communication, Annexure 1A, which is intimation given to the petitioner that he has to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from both the medical colleges/Universities (relieving/receiving) the candidate. The petitioner applied for 'No Objection Certificate' from Dr. D.Y. Patial Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Pimri, Pune, where he intends to migrate. The said College has given 'No Objection Certificate'. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-2.
Respondents No. 2 and 3 are relieving University and College respectively. The petitioner applied for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' on 16.11.2012. The petitioner states that due to personal grudge and vendetta of the Vice Chancellor against the petitioner's father, the University has exceeded its limit and has not only declined to issue 'No Objection Certificate' but the petitioner has started receiving threats of dire consequences. The petitioner as such was even forced to lodge an FIR on 26.11.2012. As per the petitioner, grant of 'No Objection Certificate' otherwise is formality but the same has been declined by the College on the ground that the same was not applied within 30 days of the declaration of the result. Copy of the Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 4 order declining the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' is annexed with the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has explained the reasons why the petitioner could not apply for issuance of No Objection Certificate within the stipulated period. In this regard, reference is made to record placed with the reply by the MCI. Perusal of Annexure R1/5 would disclose the reason for which the petitioner could not submit his application within stipulated period of 30 days. The petitioner has disclosed that he had no plans for migration to the other University, and if he had so intended, he could have applied for it within 30 days of declaration of the result. As per the petitioner, he is doing so because of changed circumstances which had compelled him to seek migration. The factors, which had compelled the petitioner to seek this migration are then listed and are as under:-
" As anonymous false complaint levelling false allegations against me which got circulated among our class students had resulted in severe depression on me and I have been under the care of Psychiatrist, Dr. Manu Tiwari of Fortis Hospital. Also I have been evaluated by Dr. S.N. Deshpandey, HOD, Dept. of Psychiatry, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, who have advised immediate change in academic environment to prevent serious threat to my mental and physical health (the copies of both the certificates are enclosed). I have also been threatened by unknown people and there is a risk to my life in case I go back to PGIMS, Rohtak. A complaint to this effect has already been filed with the police station on 20/11/2012 (copy of complaint is enclosed).
Due to fear psychosis, I have not been attending Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 5 any class since 06/11/2012 which is resulting in the loss of my studies and attendance. Any further delay will be detrimental to my career and further waste of my precious time."
It is anonymous false complaint allegedly levelling false allegations against the petitioner, which have been circulated and have led to severe depression of the petitioner. That has made the petitioner psychiatrist patient, which had prompted the petitioner to submit this application for migration. It is on the basis of medical advice. The petitioner states that due to fear psychosis, he has not been able to attend any class since 06/11/2012, which has resulted in loss of studies and attendance. The petitioner, accordingly, pleads that any further delay will be detrimental not only to his career but would further lead to waste of study time.
Reply on behalf of the University has been filed. Counsel appearing for the University has opposed the prayer of the petitioner tooth and nail. Again and again, counsel has only stressed that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for having used unfair means in the First Year examination for which inquiry against the petitioner is in progress. Counsel for the respondent-University submits that the respondents are more keen on completing the inquiry and bringing it to finality.
The issue regarding inquiry is to be dealt with separately as is challenged in CWP No. 2491 of 2012 which the petitioner has filed. The prayer made in the said writ petition, which was listed before this Court, is that the fair inquiry may not be possible in the atmosphere and in the background that allegations of personal bias Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 6 are made against the Vice Chancellor. Notice in this writ petition has already been issued and further inquiry, which was in progress, has been stayed. The concern in the present writ petition is not as to what would be the outcome of this inquiry. If there are allegations against the petitioner/student for using unfair means that cannot be permitted to go un-investigated. I am rather clear in my mind that the University would have every right to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner for use of unfair means. The question to be seen would be whether there is any substance in the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ so filed that the inquiry under the control of the Vice Chancellor would be fair or not. The Court is yet to form an opinion on this aspect and if it comes to this conclusion that the inquiry can fairly be held or that the allegation of bias against the Vice Chancellor are not made out, it may still allow the University to continue with the inquiry. On the other hand, if it is found that there are chances that the fair enquiry cannot be held under the control of Vice Chancellor of the University, the Court may not hesitate to interfere and direct inquiry by some independent agency. The enquiry, however, has to be permitted in any case. This issue ofcourse is to be dealt with when the writ petition in this regard is taken up for consideration.
The issue in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is to be made to suffer in health and otherwise in his studies. The University, in my view, is taking too technical stand in objecting to grant of 'No Objection certificate'. The reasons which are now advanced during the course of arguments to oppose the Civil Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2012 7 prayer even are not mentioned in the order passed by the University to decline permission to grant 'No Objection Certificate'. The only reason mentioned in the order impugned, is that the petitioner had not applied for migration within 30 days of the declaration of the result. The petitioner has, to an extent, been fair in disclosing this fact as to why he is seeking migration. The whole issue arose when anonymous complaint was received and the inquiry has commenced. It is this reason that health of the petitioner has suffered and the doctors have recommended that it will not be in his interest to allow the petitioner to continue the study at this University or at this institute. The University could be expected to act in a fair manner and take a stand considering the health of the petitioner. There is no objection raised in regard to the medical record submitted by the petitioner. That being not in dispute, it can be assumed to be a correct. Otherwise also, the medical certificates have been issued by some renowned medical institutes and hospitals.
Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration view and keeping in view the fact that the migration case is to be considered by the Medical Council of India, I would dispose of this writ petition with the direction to Medical Council of India to consider the case of migration of the petitioner even without the 'No Objection certificate', which is otherwise requirement in accordance with the legal position.
The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
December 21, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE