Vijyender Sharma/Shimla
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has found the denial of NOC and not allowing Extra Ordinary Leave to a Senior Resident Doctor to participate in the NEET Super Specialty Course counseling, by the Director Health Services, Govt. of H.P., highly unjust and arbitrary.
Justice Ranjan Sharma, passed this order on a petition filed by Dr. Anupam Sharma.
The petitioner is serving as Senior Resident (General Surgery), in the Dr. Y.S. Parmar Government Medical College, Nahan. He appeared for the NEET Super Specialty Examination 2023, conducted by the National Medical Commission and qualified the aforesaid examination.
The Court found that the action of the respondent in sleeping over the matter and in neither considering nor conveying any decision thereon amounts to depriving petitioner of his rights. The Court observed that the fairness demanded that the respondents should have considered the case and pass an appropriate order. The Court further observed that the action of the State authorities is not only deplorable but at the same time it has lead to arbitrariness and perversity.
After qualifying the Examination the petitioner applied to the Director of Health Services for issuance of NOC and Grant of Extra Ordinary Leave, so as to enable him to pursue higher studies of NEET Super Specialty Course. The respondents neither acceded to the request of the petitioner nor conveyed a decision in this regard. The petitioner was informed verbally on 6.11.2023, that NOC cannot be issued. The petitioner was left with no other option but to approach the High Court.
The Court found that the action of the respondent in sleeping over the matter and in neither considering nor conveying any decision thereon amounts to depriving petitioner of his rights. The Court observed that the fairness demanded that the respondents should have considered the case and pass an appropriate order. The Court further observed that the action of the State authorities is not only deplorable but at the same time it has lead to arbitrariness and perversity.
The Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that as per provisions of policies framed in this regard, no NOC is to be granted but after going through the policies, the Court found that the NOC cannot be granted for second post graduation course which is not the claim of the petitioner. The Court directed the respondents to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner forthwith and also hand over the original certificates of the petitioner, so as to enable him to participate in the Counseling.