AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by Dr. Nilesh K. Jaybhaye challenging the communication dated 30.08.2019 rejecting his representation dated 18.06.2019 and praying for quashment of the same with the further prayer to direct the respondents to grant him extension of one year for completing Post Graduate study course of MD (Anatomy).
When the matter was listed in the Court on 19.11.2019, the petitioner who appeared in person submitted that he could not afford to engage a counsel. Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel who was present in the Court, offered his services pro bono to argue the matter on his behalf.
Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has simply requested for extension of one year to complete his course. The respondents have the authority to grant such extension which is evident from their order dated 01.10.2018. It is submitted that two students of the same Institution, namely, Dr. Chandra Kumar Das and Dr. Tony Ete, Senior Resident (Academic) requested for rescheduling the programme of DM (Cardiology:2015-16) and Professional University Examination, 2018. The respondent-Director has extended their tenure as Senior Resident Doctor (Non-Academic) on adhoc basis in level 11 of pay matrix and other allowances as admissible for a period of 100 (hundred) days w.e.f. 08.08.2018 till 15.11.2018. It was prescribed as a one-time arrangement on the condition that they will work in the department of Cardiology.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondents by not giving similar treatment to the petitioner has discriminated against him. Their action is thus violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside.
Mr. K Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Post Graduate Residency Programme of the petitioner, which started from 16.09.2013, was to be completed within three years. However, it was already extended in the case of the petitioner up to 31.08.2019. Even then, special treatment was accorded to the petitioner in view of the judgment passed by this Court on 25.07.2017. The learned Single Bench in that judgment has directed the respondents to release his stipend and quashed all the FIRs filed against him. But the learned Single Judge at the same time required the petitioner to maintain peace and harmony. But soon after the said reports the petitioner started complaining against the respondents and filed a suit claiming huge damages at the tune of Rs.19,91,74,191/-. The petitioner also made complaints to various functionaries including Central Government as well as State Government. Learned counsel submitted that in fact the order passed by the learned Single Bench has substantially redressed his grievances. The petitioner and the respondents held a meeting on 26.08.2019 with regard to the submission of his Thesis and holding of final examination. The petitioner was informed that there was no proper documentation regarding extension of his residence period beyond the stipulated 3 (three) years which will be completed on 31.08.2019. In the said meeting, the petitioner informed that he had prepared 800 microscopic slides, therefore he was told that this would be enough for his MD Thesis as per comment of Co-Guide. It was also suggested to him that he could use the facilities of microscopic photography available in the department of Forensic Medicine. He was also advised to submit his Thesis latest by 15.10.2019 so that the Final University Examination could be planned accordingly as it is indicated in the minutes of the said meeting.
Having heard the rival submissions, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perused the matter on record. Already, more than six years have passed after the start of the course. This Court is not incline to interfere with the impugned order. However, without making any comment on the conduct of the petitioner, this Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already spent 6 years of his life to the studies, deems it appropriate to direct that if the petitioner submit his Thesis by 31.12.2019, the respondent shall accept the same and shall programme and hold the Final University Examination with an intimation to him. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail of this direction, he shall be doing so at his own peril.
The Court placed on records its sense of appreciation for Mr. A.H. Hazarika who has provided pro bono services to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and is disposed of as above.