In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court addressed the case of NBEMS vs Dr. Sri Kiruba Nandini, highlighting the importance of compassion and understanding in legal judgements. The ruling showcases the balance between strict regulations and the human side of justice, urging for fairness in decision-making processes.
Facts
- The court is required to determine if NBEMS was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s candidature for her DNB program due to excessive absences.
- The petitioner was absent for 297 days from DNB training without prior approval from NBEMS.
- The applicable Leave Rules for DNB trainees allow for leave during training as per NBEMS regulations.
- NBEMS has the authority to enforce rules and regulations regarding attendance and leave for DNB trainees.
- Dr. Sri Kiruba Nandini underwent training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Apollo Hospital.
- She was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia M-2 Type in September 2022.
- Started intensive treatment on 27 September 2022 and underwent chemotherapeutic treatment.
- Her condition worsened due to the Covid-19 pandemic, requiring ventilator support.
- Discharged on 15 November 2022 after 50 days of continuous treatment.
- Medical Oncology Director issued a certificate advising leave till completion of treatment, including allogenic stem cell transplant.
- She went on leave from 27.09.2022 to 20.07.2023 without prior approval from NBEMS.
Arguments
- Mr. Kirtiman Singh argues that the petitioner should have submitted a leave application in advance, even if she was indisposed during the training period.
- He emphasizes that the NBEMS approval is a prerequisite for any leave taken by a candidate.
- Mr. Kirtiman Singh insists that the petitioner’s leave request should have been formally considered by the NBEMS before she proceeded on leave.
- Mr. Gera, learned Counsel for the petitioner, requested permission for the petitioner to appear in the final theory examinations of NBEMS starting on 15 May 2024.
- Mr. Kirtiman Singh argued that the decision to cancel the petitioner’s candidature by NBEMS was justified given the circumstances.
Analysis
- The petitioner faced prolonged absenteeism from training due to critical illness.
- The NBEMS canceled the petitioner’s registration for DNB course due to prolonged absence without proper communication.
- The petitioner’s absence was due to chemotherapy and septic shock, leading to a fractured training.
- The Court emphasized the importance of justice over mechanical decisions in such cases.
- The NBEMS did not issue a show cause notice before canceling the petitioner’s registration, violating procedural fairness.
- The petitioner’s appeal for restoration of candidature was based on medical evidence and extenuating circumstances.
- The NBEMS has discretionary power to consider cases of prolonged illness for leave extension.
- The NBEMS should consider factors like training continuity and candidate’s intent before canceling candidature.
- The Court directed NBEMS to reinstate the petitioner’s registration for the DNB course.
- The petitioner’s medical situation and absence were genuine and justified, requiring mercy and understanding.
- The impugned decision to cancel the petitioner’s registration lacked judicious exercise of discretion.
- The Court emphasized the adherence to NBEMS leave rules but highlighted the need for compassion in the face of genuine hardships.
- The petitioner’s case highlighted the clash between strict rules and the human element in administering justice.
- The Court criticized the mechanical cancellation of candidature without taking into account the unique circumstances of the petitioner.
- The NBEMS was urged to prioritize justice and fairness in decision-making over rigid application of rules.
- The principle of audi alteram partem requires that both parties involved in a dispute must be given an opportunity to be heard.
- This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. U.O.I.
- Strict compliance with this principle is necessary, especially in situations where the rights of individuals or entities are at stake.
- Failure to adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem can result in procedural unfairness and arbitrary decisions.
- The petitioner agreed to undergo extended training without seeking any concession
- She informed NBEMS of her situation upon rejoining duty
- The only mistake was not applying for leave as required by rules
- Physical impossibility for the petitioner to apply for leave during that period
Decision
- The DNB candidature of the petitioner is restored.
- Further inquisitorial process on the petitioner would be harsh and insensitive.
- The writ petition is allowed with no costs.
- No further communication will be entertained.
- The petitioner is permitted to undergo DNB theory examinations on 15 May 2024.
Case Title: DR SRI KIRUBA NANDINI M Vs. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ANR. (2024:DHC:3865)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-5633/2024
