Chennai: The Madras high court came to the rescue of a lady doctor who was denied PG medical admission on the ground that she has not completed two years of minimum service by excluding the maternity leave availed by her. The court directed the authorities to admit her in Diploma in Gynecology and Obstetrics for the next academic year 2018-19 without the necessity of applying and writing the Neet examination 2018.
“This case would throw light as to how the government officials are acting contrary to the Rules, prejudicing the rights of women government servants like the petitioner. It is nothing but an incidence of woman harassment. Refusing to grant the legal benefit itself is an incidence of harassment of woman or discrimination of woman. The officials who are supposed to take decision need to be sensitised regarding the entitlement of maternity leave of women government servants”, said Justice N. Kirubakaran while allowing a petition from Dr U. Ishwarya.
The judge said no Act or clause or rule/condition would take away the fundamental and human right of a lady to conceive and give birth to a child and the consequential benefits like maternity leave, if she is an employed woman. If any such condition has been prescribed by the authorities, it has to be declared as null and void, the judge added.
Referring to the contention put forth by the special government pleader that approved probationers alone were entitled to maternity leave, Justice Kirubakaran said nature does not discriminate whether the woman was an approved probationer or unapproved probationer with regard to childbirth.
The very purpose of having maternity leave was to avoid hard labour or work at the time of pregnancy as it would be detrimental to the servant/employee and also the health of the foetus. Hence, benefits given under Rule 10 (a) of Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules were equally applicable to the petitioner, an unapproved probationer and there cannot be any discrimination, the judge added.
Pointing out that the petitioner has scored 1097 marks in Neet PG 2017, the judge said the petitioner was already frustrated as she has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault of hers and the right of admission accrued to her should not be vitiated merely because the time limit for admission stipulated by the Supreme Court was already over. In the middle of the academic year, if the petitioner was to be admitted in the course, it would not only be against the interest of the petitioner but also society as the clinical training and study, which the petitioner would have got from October 1 to till date could not be gained by her. Hence, the petitioner could not be admitted during the present academic year.
The interest of justice requires only admission of the petitioner in a PG diploma course in the next academic year, the judge added.
