Full Text
Date of Decision: 29th April, 2019
GOVIND RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: None
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr.
Panel Counsel for UOI Mr. Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh and
For Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advs, for R-2 & 3
JUDGMENT
1. This application seeks review of the judgment, dated 9th January, 2019, passed by me in W.P.(C) 5371/2017.
2. A brief recapitulation of the facts would be apposite.
3. The petitioner in the writ petition (who is the respondent in this review petition, but would be referred to, hereinafter, as “the petitioner”) joined the Postgraduate course in Prosthodontics in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 1st July, 2015. 2019:DHC:2334
4. While he was pursuing the said course, on 21st January, 2016, the petitioner wrote to the Dean of the AIIMS, expressing his inability to continue with the course owing to his personal reasons and seeking permission to resign.
5. The following letter, dated 1st February, 2016, was written, by the AIIMS, as a response thereto: “ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCINECES ACADEMIC SECTION No.F.4-7/2015-ACAD.[1] Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-29 Dated: February 1, 2016.
MEMORANDUM Subject: Request for acceptance of resignation in r/o. Dr.Govind Rawat, Junior Resident (PG) in the department of Prosthodontics.” X X X X X X X X X X With reference to his/her application dated 21.01.2016 on the subject cited above, Dr. Govind Rawat, Junior Resident (PG) in the department of Prosthodontics is informed that the Dean has been pleased to accept his/her resignation w.e.f. 04-01-2016 subject to the condition that he/she has to deposit draft of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) towards Penalty for discontinuation of P.G. Course in the Mid-term. The salary for the month of January, 2016 is forfeited. He/she is required to deposit EHS Card/Identity Card issued to him/her if any. Sd./- (Satish Kumar Singh) Administrative Officer (Acad.) Dr. Govind Rawat Junior Resident (PG) In the department of Prosthodontics Copy to: 1. Prof and H.O.D. of Prosthodontics
2. Accounts Section II and III/RPC/CNC
3. Hostel Section
4. Dr. B.B. Dikshit Library” (Emphasis supplied)
6. The petitioner, thereafter, expressed his inability to pay the amount of ₹ 5 lakh, as demanded by the aforementioned letter dated 1st February, 2016 and, vide his subsequent letters dated 8th March, 2016 and 24th May, 2016, requested for cancellation of resignation and expressed his desire to continue with the PG course.
7. To the letter dated 8th March, 2016 (supra), the AIIMS responded, vide the following letter, dated 30th March, 2016, from the AIIMS to the petitioner: “ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES F.NO.4-7/2015-ACAD-1 Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-29 Dated: 30-03-2016 MEMORANDUM Subject: Request for cancellation of Resignation and to continue the post-graduation course- Dr. Govind Rawat, Ex-Junior Resident (PG) in the department of Dental Surgery. With reference to his application dated 8th March, 2016 on the subject cited above. Dr. Rawat is informed that his request for cancellation of resignation and to continue the post-graduation course has been considered by the Competent Authority of AIIMS but it is regretted that the same cannot be acceded to at this stage. Dr. Govind Rawat is further informed that his resignation has already been accepted by the Dean w.e.f. 04.01.2016 vide memorandum dated 1.2.2016. Accordingly, he has to deposit draft of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) in favour of the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi towards penalty for discontinuation of PG course in the Mid-term and deposit No Dues etc. from the concerned department. The Salary for the month of January, 2016 is forfeited. Sd/- (Satish Kumar Singh) Administrative Officer (Acad.) Dr. Govind Rawat Ex-Junior Resident (PG) In the department of Prosthodontics Th: Chief, CDER Dr. Govid Rawat Village Barodi District Shivpuri, Shivpuri Madhya Pradesh-473551 Copy to: 1. Prof, and H.O.D. of Prosthodontics
2. Accounts Section II & Ill
3. Hostel Section
4. Dr. B. B. Dikshit Library”
8. The petitioner had approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the aforementioned letter dated 30th March, 2016.
9. The aforementioned writ petition was allowed, by me, by my judgment dated 9th January, 2019, presently is under review.
10. I had noticed the fact that the letter dated 1st February, 2016, whereby the decision on the petitioner’s request for permission to resign from the course of Prosthodontics being pursued by him, was communicated to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the said letter made the acceptance to the petitioner’s requests for recognition “subject to the condition that he/she has to deposit a draft of ₹ 5 lakh towards penalty for discontinuing of PG course in mid-term”, I had taken a view that, in the absence of such deposit, the acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation would not fructify.
11. Mr. Atul Kumar, appearing for the AIIMS, arguing the review petition, concedes fairly that the interpretation adopted by me is correct if one were to literally read the letter dated 1st February, 2016. He, however, submits that, in the interests of justice, this Court ought not to have accorded a literal interpretation to the letter dated 1st February, 2016, but ought to have kept in mind the fact that the condition of deposit of ₹ 5 lakh was an inevitable sequitur to acceptance of resignation by the petitioner mid-term.
12. Once the interpretation accorded, by me, to the letter dated 1st February, 2016 (supra), written by the Dean of the AIIMS, to the petitioner, is accepted as correct, if one were to read the letter as it were worded, I do not see how any case for review of my judgment dated 9th January, 2019, within the parameters contemplated under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be said to be made out.
13. The grievance expressed, by learned counsel for the petitioner, is regarding the manner in which I have interpreted the letter dated 1st February, 2016. According to him, the said letter ought not to have been interpreted literally, but ought to have been accorded another interpretation, which, as he submits, would harmonize with the prospectus of the AIIMS.
14. Apart from the fact that this submission cannot constitute a legitimate ground to seek a review of my judgment, no ground for review is made out, I am also of the view that this submission is even otherwise without any merit.
15. Clause 12 (D) of the prospectus would kick in only if the candidate leaves the course which he/she has joined. The petitioner, in the present case, desires to leave the course, for which he sought permission to resign.
16. The AIIMS with its eyes open, and in entire awareness of the terms of the prospectus, took a conscious decision to accept the petitioner’s resignation “subject to condition” of deposit, by the petitioner, of ₹ 5 lakh.
17. The expression “subject to” has its own distinct legal connotation. In P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 5152, the Supreme Court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., which defined “subject to” as “liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to, governed or affected by, provided that, provided”. In K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty & Sons & Co. v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1152, the Supreme Court interpreted the expression “subject to”, as figuring in Section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 as meaning that the exemption under the licence, with which the court was concerned in that case, was conditional upon the observance of the conditions prescribed and upon the restrictions which are imposed by and under the Act whether in the rules or in the licence itself. In Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2004) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that, “subject to” was an expression whereby limitation was expressed.
18. By making the acceptance of the petitioner’s request for resignation subject to the condition that he deposited a draft of ₹ 5 lakh, the AIIMS made the resignation enforceable conditional upon such admission made by the petitioner. The inevitable sequitur was, therefore, that, sans making of the said payment, the resignation, on the part of the petitioner never fructified.
19. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the learned counsel for the AIIMS has not been able to point out any error apparent, on the face of the record, as would justify review of my judgment dated 9th January, 2019.
20. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
21. CM APPLs.19964-19966/2019 also stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J