1 2025:CGHC:4596-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 522 of 2025 Dr. Garima Ingole D/o Rajendra Ingole Aged About 33 Years R/o Presently Pursuing M.D. (Anatomy) At Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Medical Education North Block, Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Dean Government Medical College, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.27 18:57:57 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27-01-2025 1. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No.1 to immediately issue the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and sanction the petitioner's leave in light of recommendation dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P/15) issued by respondent no.2 to secure her admission in the M.D. (Anatomy) course for the academic session 2023-24. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, be awarded.” 2. The facts as per the petition, are that the petitioner, a qualified MBBS doctor, is currently pursuing a M.D (Anatomy) postgraduate course at Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, having secured admission through NEET-PG 2023 conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences. Prior to appearing for NEET-PG and securing admission, the petitioner diligently obtained all requisite permissions from her employer, Respondent No. 2, while serving as a Demonstrator with respondent no.4. Despite her compliance with procedural requirements and making 3 multiple representations well the respondent authorities specifically respondent no.1 has failed to issue the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and sanction her leave, both of which are crucial for continuing her postgraduate course. The petitioner's repeated efforts, including representations to higher authorities, have been met with bureaucratic delays, causing undue hardship and jeopardizing her academic future. On 07th November 2023, Respondent No. 2 communicated to Respondent No. 1 with 'positive note' that there is no legal impediment to issue NOC and sanction leave in the favour of the petitioner. However till date the matter has not been resolved and the respondent no.1 has failed to pass appropriate orders in the light of communication letter dated 07.11.2023. Therefore, the petitioner respectfully seeks a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately issue the NOC and sanction her leave so that she can pursue her postgraduate education and professional aspirations without any hurdles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the action of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The actions of respondent authorities violate the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by causing undue delays in issuing the NOC and sanctioning leave, jeopardizing her academic future. The petitioner submitted a duly formatted application on 23.10.2023 for sanction of leave and 4 NOC, fulfilling all procedural requirements, yet respondent authorities has failed to act, showing a lack of administrative fairness. The petitioner's compliance with fee payments, institutional protocols, and formalities establishes her enforceable right to continue her education without arbitrary hindrance, and inaction of respondent authorities undermines this rights of the petitioner. The petitioner's postgraduate education aligns with the larger public interest, arbitrary delays harm not just the petitioner but also the healthcare sector, which relies on trained professionals. The unjustified delay by respondent authorities threatens to cause irreparable harm to the petitioner's academic and professional future, warranting immediate judicial intervention to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner's legal right to an efficient administrative process and timely response from public authorities has been blatantly ignored, this Hon'ble Court's intervention is necessary to uphold the rule of law and prevent irreparable harm. After completing 1st year in P.G. (Anatomy) the petitioner has deposited fees for 2nd year on 19.11.2024. Pursuant to the recommendation dated 07.11.2023 wherein the DME has issued a positive recommendation to issue NOC in the favour of the petitioner which has not been taken care by respondent no.1, the respondent no.3 vide letter no. 5786/Estt./24 dated 19.06.2024 has again recommended for issuance of NOC in the favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.2 vide communication letter dated 07th November 2023 has clearly 5 recommended that there is no legal impediment in issuing NOC in the favour of the petitioner but till date the respondent no.1 has failed to act upon the recommendation dated 07.11.2023 and had kept the matter in cold storage. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has come up before this Court for issuance of NOC and sanction leave to the petitioner in light of recommendation dated 07.11.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 to secure her admissions in the M.D. (Anatomy) court for academic session 2023-24, after an inordinate delay of more than a year, which itself shows that the petitioner was not at all vigilant. Further, since the matter pertains to the recommendation passed in the year 2023, the matter has virtually become infructuous. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. The petitioner applied for leave on 23.10.2023, from 23.10.2023 to 23.10.2026 for a period of three years (Annexure P/15) for which NOC was required to be sanctioned by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. The application of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the Director, Medical Education to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Medical Education Department vide communication dated 07.11.2023 with recommendation to grant NOC. However, till date, no NOC has been granted to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed this application only on 6 18.01.2025 after a lapse of about one year and two months. The appellant ought to have moved the application for grant of leave well within time and then only she ought to have proceeded on leave. The petitioner had applied for leave on 23.10.2023 and no breathing time has been given to the concerned authorities as on the same date, the petitioner has proceeded on leave. The petitioner herself had not taken any steps to ascertain as to whether her leave was granted or not and whether the NOC has been granted to her. After a long period of time, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. It is well settled principle of law that a Court ordinarily does not assist the tardy, indolent and lethargic person who himself is not vigilant towards his/her rights as such, this petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law, before the appropriate forum, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet