Allowed

Dr. Ankit Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Secy. (H and Fw) New Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/8774/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition quashing rejection orders barring a medical faculty member from traveling abroad for a conference. The court held the rejection was based on a non-existent PIL and an order lacking application of mind. Probation status was NOT a bar as no financial aid was sought.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's application for permission to go abroad for the TCT-2024 conference are quashed. The competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order within four da

Dr. Ankit Gupta Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. (H… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69511

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8774 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Ankit Gupta

¶5

Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. (H And Fw) New Delhi And 5 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri,Vishnu Kant Awasthi

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate / Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 3 to 6 and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶11

With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the matter is being finally decided.

¶12

The instant petition has been filed an Assistant Professor working in the Department of Cardiology in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli praying for quashing of the rejection orders of permission / approval dated 10.09.2024, 09.09.2024 and 03.09.2024 passed by respondents No.4 to 6, copies of which have been filed as annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively.

¶13

By means of the said rejection orders, the permission sought by the petitioner for going abroad i.e. to Walter E. Washington Convention Centre, Washington DC, United States of America for presentation at the TCT 2024 case With the Masters Session as per the invitation, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the

¶14

petition, has been rejected.

¶15

The presentation is scheduled to take place from 27.10.2024 to 30.10.2024 as per the said invitation.

¶16

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working in the AIIMS, Raebareli. After the receipt of the said invitation through e-mail dated 31.08.2024, as referred to above, he had applied for permission which has been rejected by the respondents No.4 to 6 on the sole ground of the PIL having been filed by his patient.

¶17

This Court, vide order dated 03.10.2024, has required the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring on record the general guidelines of the Institute's policy for grant of permission to faculty members of AIIMS, Raebareli for going abroad. In pursuance thereof, the supplementary affidavit has been filed and the guidelines have also been brought on record as annexure SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶18

Placing reliance on the guidelines more particularly Guideline No. 01/B/Going Abroad Other Than SAARC Countries , the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his case for grant of permission is squarely covered by Guideline No.01/B/i which indicates that it is only in case of financial support from the Institute that the faculty member should have completed probation period and has put in at least 3 years of regular service at the Institute.

¶19

The contention is that that the only impediment which could be there and which could be used by the respondents for denying permission to go abroad to the petitioner, in pursuance of the invitation which has been received, would be that financial assistance is sought by a probationer doctor.

¶20

In the instant case, it is contended that though the petitioner is a probationer whose probation period has also been extended yet once he has not sought any financial assistance from the Institute, consequently, the respondents have patently erred in law in rejecting the application of the petitioner for going abroad although in the orders impugned it has only been indicated that on account of pendency of the PIL which has been filed by a patient, the permission cannot be granted to him.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that previously the said PIL number had been indicated by the learned D.S.G.I. as PIL No.6599 of 2024 but as per the status report, which has been filed as annexure SA-8 to the supplementary affidavit, no such case by the aforesaid case number has been found and thus the only ground which has been taken by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner for going abroad indicates patent non application of mind and reflects rejection of the claim of the petitioner on total non existent grounds. Thus, it is prayed that the aforesaid rejection be quashed with a further direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines.

¶22

Responding to the aforesaid arguments, the learned D.S.G.I. argues on the basis of instructions received from AIIMS, Raebareli through e-mail that although only one ground has been indicated in the rejection order, as passed in the case of the petitioner, yet the other grounds are that (a) the petitioner is a probationer and his probation has also been extended; (b) earlier the petitioner has been issued with three show cause notices; (c) the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor in the Cardiology Department which has emergency services and in case the petitioner would go abroad, there would not be sufficient number of doctors to attend to the patients in the

¶23

Cardiology Department; (d) the petitioner has earlier gone abroad approximately 10 times for presentation of his papers and (e) Guideline No. 01/B itself gives a discretion to the Director to either grant permission or not, by use of the word "may" and consequently, the Director concerned, after considering the aforesaid grounds, has not found it feasible to grant permission to the petitioner to go abroad. It is thus prayed that the petition merits to be rejected.

¶24

Learned Standing counsel has adopted the arguments of Shri S.B. Pandey, learned D.S.G.I.

¶25

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

From the arguments as raised by learned counsels for the contesting parties, it emerges that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor in the Cardiology Department of the AIIMS, Raebareli. He has received an invitation for presentation of a TCT 2024 case with the Masters session at Washington DC for the period from 27.10.2024 to 30.10.2024.

¶27

Upon the petitioner having applied for permission to go abroad, the same has been rejected by the respondents No.4 to 6. The ground of rejection as emerges from perusal of the order(s) impugned is that "Dr. Ankit Gupta has been stopped on going any conference / leave (out of station from Raebareli) because of the PIL filed by his patient."

¶28

The aforesaid ground of rejection which has prevailed on the competent authority appears to be on account of some PIL which as per the number indicated is 6599 of 2024 but as per the status report there is no PIL with the number 6599 of 2024 as per annexure SA-8 to the supplementary affidavit. Thus, it is

¶29

apparent that the claim of the petitioner for going abroad has been rejected with patent non application of mind by the competent authority and as such the orders impugned merit to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶30

As regards, the other ground which have been taken by Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of instructions, it would be suffice to state that keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851, the reasons which do not form part of the order cannot be supplemented by means of an affidavit or otherwise. Thus, the said grounds as have not been taken in the order impugned are not required to be seen by the Court. However, on the insistence of Shri S.B. Pandey, learned D.S.G.I., the Court proceeds to consider the said ground also.

¶31

As regards the petitioner being a probationary doctor and his probation period having been extended, the said ground may not detain the Court inasmuch as the guidelines for grant of permission to faculty members of the AIIMS, Raebareli to attend various scientific conferences and other assignments in India and Abroad, which has filed as annexure SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit, only creates an embargo on a probationer where some financial assistance is required.

¶32

In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Guideline No. 01/B/i wherein, in the case of financial support from the Institute, the faculty member should have completed probation period and should have put in at least 3 years of regular service at the Institute. It is not the case of the respondents, neither of the petitioner, that he has required any financial assistance for going abroad. Once the probationer, to which category the petitioner belongs, is not requiring any

¶33

financial assistance, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the said ground, i.e. the petitioner being a probationer doctor, to prevail upon the respondents while denying the claim of the petitioner for going abroad. Thus the said ground taken by the respondents is rejected.

¶34

So far as the ground of three show cause notices having been issued to the petitioner is concerned, the said ground may also not detain the Court inasmuch as the guidelines do not indicate anywhere that a person to whom a show cause notice may have been issued is precluded from going abroad. Thus the mere issuance of show cause notices and the same being pending does not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law against the petitioner and the same cannot be considered to be a valid ground for denying permission to the petitioner for going abroad. Thus the said ground is also rejected.

¶35

So far as the ground of the petitioner having gone abroad approximately ten times is concerned, the guidelines do not contain any restriction on a number of times a doctor can go abroad. Once, no embargo is contained in the guidelines, consequently, merely because the petitioner has been invited abroad to present his papers, again cannot be used as a ground for denying the permission to the petitioner for going abroad.

¶36

So far as the ground that the petitioner is working as a Doctor in the Cardiology Department which has emergency services and his going abroad may hamper the efficient working of the Cardiology Department is concerned, the said ground is found to be patently misconceived. The reason is that nothing restrains the competent authority from recruiting as many numbers of doctors as it requires for the efficient discharge of public duties / public services / health services. Merely because

¶37

on account of the inaction and the lackadaisical attitude of the competent authority in not recruiting the doctors, a shortage of doctors is noticed, the same cannot be used as a licence to deprive a person who has been invited abroad for presentation of his papers from going abroad. Accordingly, the said ground is also rejected.

¶38

So far as the ground that it is the discretion of the Director to either grant permission or not, it is needless to mention that it is a settled proposition of law that in case a discretion is vested in an authority, the said discretion has to be exercised judiciously and with application of mind and cannot be exercised in a pedantic or in a capricious manner or arbitrarily. The ground which has been taken by the respondents while denying the permission as finds place in the order impugned itself reflects patent non application of mind on the part of the competent authority in denying the permission to the petitioner in going abroad inasmuch as, there is no PIL that is pending as per the number that had been given by the learned D.S.G.I. to indicate that the said pending of the PIL can be a bar for the petitioner to go abroad. Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

¶39

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 10.09.2024, 09.09.2024 and 03.09.2024 passed by respondents No.4 to 6, copies of which have been filed as annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the petition, so far as they pertain to rejecting the application of the petitioner for going abroad, are quashed.

¶40

Let the competent authority pass a fresh order in accordance with law and the relevant guidelines pertaining to the petitioner going abroad in terms of the application sent to him. Let a fresh order in this regard be passed within a period of four days from today. The order should be passed without waiting for a

¶41

certified copy of this order. Shri S.B. Pandey, learned D.S.G.I. shall inform about this order to the competent authority within 24 hours in order to enable them to pass an order in this regard within the aforesaid time.

¶42

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 S. Shivhare

¶43

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Ankit Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Secy. (H and Fw) New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ankit Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Secy. (H and Fw) New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Renu Mahesh Institute of Nursing Sciences Thru. Manager/Secy. Renu Mahesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and 5 Others

C/M R.D. Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Thru. Manager Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Devi Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Dr. Ankit Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. (H and Fw) New Delhi and 5 Others

Rajesh Gupta and Another vs Balram Singh and 5 Others

Mandvi Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Panchayati Raj ) Lko. and 7 Others