Dismissed

Usha Eknath Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2016WP/4062/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner, a staff nurse, to pay Rs. 1 lakh as a penalty for leaving the Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing course. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner could not have been incapacitated from studying while performing normal nursing duties, and the penalty conditions were valid.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ as per admission brochure conditions.

Usha Eknath Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4062-15.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4062 OF 2015

Usha Eknath Rathod

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. L.S. Deshmukh Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.B. Khaire AGP for the State

¶12

CORAM : D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶13

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶14

DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2016.

¶15

ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State.

¶17

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner

¶18

against the order dated 17.3.2015 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original

¶19

Application No. 1224 of 2013. By the said Original

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 10

¶21

4062-15.doc

¶22

Application, the petitioner, a staff nurse was seeking issuance of directions to quash the letters dated 30.10.2013 and 3.9.2013, by way of which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of her leaving the P.B. B.Sc. Nursing Degree Course (2 years) within a few months of joining the same and thereby wasting a seat, in accordance with the conditions prescribed for admission to the said course.

¶23

The brief facts of this case are as under:-

¶24

The petitioner after having put in requisite service became eligible for admission to Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Degree course. She fulfilled eligibility criteria prescribed in the brochure and by the Indian Nursing Council. The petitioner applied for the said course during the academic year 2012-13 and was selected for the course which commenced on 1.10.2012. According to the petitioner, after joining the course, she started suffering from pain in the

¶25

abdomen and back since last week of October 2012.

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 10

¶27

4062-15.doc

¶28

According to the petitioner, in the second week of November 2012, the pain became acute and therefore, on 9.11.2012, she approached the experts in J.J. Hospital. Pursuant to the checkup, the petitioner was diagnosed with "Minimal Ascitis in RIF". The petitioner stated that in view of the said condition, it became very difficult for her to continue attending the said course as she found it difficult to sit and study for a long period of time. The petitioner, therefore, on 21.1.2013 made a representation to respondent No. 3 - Institute of Nursing Education and requested the Principal of respondent No. 3 to relieve her from the said course. Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 28.1.2013 relieved the applicant and allowed her to join the regular work as Pediatric Nurse at Central Hospital at Ulhasnagar but the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the conditions stipulated in the brochure published by respondent No. 2 for the purpose of admission to the said course of B.Sc. Nursing.

¶29

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 10

¶30

4062-15.doc

¶31

On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, an affidavit was

¶32

filed by Mrs. Meena Sonavane who was the Professor / Principal of the Institute of Nursing Education, J.J. Hospital Campus. It is stated in the said affidavit that the condition of Minimal Ascitis in RIF is treatable and curable with Gynecological advice, medication and hygienic care. It is further seen that the petitioner was taking treatment only as an out-patient basis. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application on 21.1.2013 for leaving the course on the ground that she was suffering from stomachache and backache due to which it was not possible for her to sit for a long period of time and study. Thus, it is seen that within two months of joining the course, the petitioner submitted an application seeking her discharge from the course. From the

¶33

time of joining the course till submission of the application, the petitioner was taking treatment only on out-patient basis. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the Doctors in J.J. Hospital advised the petitioner to take admission in the hospital, however, this is not supported by

¶34

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 10

¶35

4062-15.doc

¶36

any documentary proof. As seen from the affidavit of Mrs. Sonavane, Minimal Ascitis in RIF was not a serious ailment. This is supported by the fact that after leaving the course, the petitioner returned to Central Hospital at Ulhasnagar to work as a staff nurse. If the petitioner could discharge her duties as a staff nurse, there was no reason why she could not have continued her P.B. B.Sc. Nursing Course.

¶37

5. Thereafter, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner

¶38

that the petitioner was advised cauterization and Cervical Biopsy and on 17.8.2013, she underwent cauterization of cervical erosion in the hospital and on 16.10.2014, she underwent hysterectomy. By these developments, the petitioner tried to justify her leaving the course, however, the

¶39

petitioner, when she applied for being relieved from the study course on 21.1.2013, she would not have been in a position to anticipate that she would have to undergo cauterization on 17.8.2013 and hysterectomy on 16.10.2014.

¶40

By the time that the petitioner underwent the hysterectomy

¶41

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 10

¶42

4062-15.doc

¶43

which was in October 2014, the petitioner would have completed the course. Even otherwise, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner's batch-mate who also took up the same study course underwent hysterectomy but completed the course successfully. As far as cauterization is concerned, the affidavit of Mrs. Sonavane shows that recovery in cauterization is very fast and only one week is required to

¶44

recover from the same. The petitioner has not been able to establish either through medical expert's opinion or logically a nexus between Minimal Ascitis in RIF and cauterization and hysterectomy which occurred much later in point of time. The petitioner's contention that Minimal Ascitis in RIF was the cause for hysterectomy was not supported by any medical opinion, therefore, cauterization and hysterectomy cannot be accepted as a justification for leaving the course because at the time when she made the application for being relieved from the course, the only subsisting condition

¶45

was Minimal Ascitis in RIF for which she was taking outpatient treatment. It is also an admitted fact that the

¶46

jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 10

¶47

4062-15.doc

¶48

petitioner resumed her duties as a nurse on 29.1.2013 and the application was made by the petitioner for leaving the course on 21.1.2013. Thus, it is seen that within a period of one week, the petitioner was well enough to attend her duties as a nurse but according to her, she was not in a physical condition to complete the course of studies. This stand is not tenable.

¶49

It is seen that the petitioner preferred an application for

¶50

leaving the course on 21.1.2013, however, the petitioner continued to attend the duty as a nurse from 29.1.2013 onwards. If the petitioner was fit to attend her duty as a nurse where she was working previously, the reason stated by her of Minimal Ascitis in RIF was not an adequate reason

¶51

to discontinue the course. The fact that she was able to work in Central Hospital at Ulhasnagar means that she could have continued with the said course.

¶52

The penalty and subsequently recovery of Rs.

¶53

jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 10

¶54

4062-15.doc

¶55

1,00,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner in view of the condition in brochure relating to selection for P.B.B.Sc.

¶56

Course Degree in the State of Maharashtra. The relevant

¶57

clauses are Clauses 9.4 and 9.5. They are as under:-

¶58

9.4 Any candidate responsible for lapse of seat will have to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs only). This is applicable to the candidates resigning a seat after cut of date for PBBSc Nursing course or also fails to complete course.

¶59

9.5 For deputed candidate from Government will have to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) for lapse of seat and salary drawn during that period with 4% interest or which is more.

¶60

This condition in brochure has approval of the competent authority i.e the Director of Medical Education and Research (respondent No. 2) and recovery of penalty has to be effected on the instructions of respondent No. 3 i.e Principal of Institute of Nursing Education. It is not disputed that the letter dated 28.1.2013 relieving the petitioner from the course of study specifically referred to the levy and payment of penalty and the petitioner has not challenged the

¶61

said letter. When the petitioner applied for admission to the

¶62

jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 10

¶63

4062-15.doc

¶64

study course of P.B.B.Sc., she was well aware of the conditions of admissions and repercussions of leaving the post midway. These conditions were approved by respondent No. 2 - the Director of Medical Education and Research who is the competent authority. These conditions are designed to deter a person from leaving the study course prematurely. These conditions were imposed because if any

¶65

service candidate leaves the course midway without adequate reason, it would lead to wastage of scarce resources and denial of opportunities to others. Limited seats are available in this course and the Government is spending huge amount of money for conducting this course. This course is conducted for the benefit of people and the nurses. If a seat lapses, another candidate who could have applied

¶66

for the study course is deprived of the opportunity of studying in that course. Clause 9.4 clearly states that any candidate responsible for lapse of seat will have to pay penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶67

jfoanz vkacsjdj 9 of 10

¶68

4062-15.doc

¶69

As stated earlier, the petitioner preferred an application

¶70

for leaving the course on 21.1.2013, however, from 29.1.2013, she resumed her duties as a nurse in Central Hospital at Ulhasnagar. If she could discharge her duties as

¶71

a staff nurse, there was no reason why she could not have continued her P.B.B.Sc. Nursing Course. The petitioner was well aware of Clauses 9.4 and 9.5 when she sought admission to the course and she also knew the repercussions for leaving the course of studies midway. Now, the petitioner

¶72

cannot be allowed to contend that no penalty ought to have been levied on her. Thus, we find no merit in this petition.

¶73

Petition is dismissed.

¶74

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶75

jfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 10

Usha Eknath Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Eknath Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Shrikrishna Ingole and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School and Education Dept and Ors.

Anuradha Damodar Gaikwad Vs Government of Maharashtra through Secretary, Public Health Dept. and Ors.

Neharu Yuba Mandal, through President, Virbhadra Gangadhar Yadwad Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sport Dept and Ors.

L. Panda and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Secretary Vs Mrs. Sunita Ashish Amritsagar

The Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. Vs Shri. Aman Ayyub Patel and Anr.