Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed to challenge the order dated 19-09-2024 issued by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (‘NBEMS’), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (‘MoHFW’), a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. held that the essential, material, and integral cause of action had arisen beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and thus, held that the directions sought in the present petition could be passed in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Background
In the present matter, the petitioner was called upon to make her submission regarding the objection raised by respondent 1 regarding the territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner submitted that the subsequent adverse orders were passed only as a consequential action to the impugned order dated 19-09-2024 and that the entire dispute was predicated solely on the decision which was taken in the territory of Delhi. Thus, the petitioner contended that the Court was capable of adjudicating the controversy.
The petitioner was selected from the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Medical Services in 2017 and was appointed on 27-12-2017 as a medical officer in Bareilly, UP. In 2023, she was transferred to Community Health Centre, Shergarh. While working as a medical officer, she appeared for NEET PG Exam 2023 and qualified the same. After counselling, the petitioner was allotted a seat in Ophthalmology post MBBS diploma, based on the MOP UP Allotment on 09-10-2023.
Based on the recommendation dated 07-10-2023 from the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly as well as the contract letter signed by the petitioner, she was granted permission to pursue the course in Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow by the Office of Director General of Medical and Health.
Vide letter dated 19-09-2024, respondent 2 directed the cancellation of the petitioner’s admission to pursue the Diploma course at the Hospital concerned for 2023 admission session. The reason for this action was that the petitioner had joined the course five months after the scheduled date of joining.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined various decisions laid down in similar matters, and said that there has always been a consistent view that solely because a fraction of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the same would not be a sufficient ground to persuade the High Court concerned to entertain a writ petition.
Further, the Court said that the essential, material, and integral cause of action, i.e. admission of the petitioner, leave application, its acceptance, the joining, leave letter, and the subsequent rejection of the candidature, all had arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and thus, held that the instant petition would fall in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Thus, the Court refused to entertain the present petition and dismissed the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court gave the petitioner the liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court to seek appropriate remedy.
[Dr. Neha Chandra v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7083, Decided on 30-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocate Soumitra Chatterjee
For Respondent — SPC Anushkaa Arora, GP Gokul Sharma
