The Delhi High Court on Thursday paved the way for transfer of the University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS) from the Delhi University to the city government, after it vacated the stay it had ordered on implementation of a Union cabinet decision of 2005.
The court said non-implementation of the Union cabinet’s decision is against public interest and has only served the private interest of the employees of the institution.
The high court said this was evident from an incident where an injured patient died as he could not be admitted to Guru Teg Bahadur (GTB) Hospital due to non-availability of CT scan machine and ventilator on January 2 after he was turned away by other city hospitals.
Established in 1971, UCMS is a government college affiliated to the University of Delhi. It is associated with Delhi government-run Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, which serves as the teaching hospital.
The court said the relocation plan placed before it in another petition highlighted grossly inadequate infrastructure at UCMS because of which patients were not getting critical services.
“We are of the considered opinion that the non-implementation of the Cabinet decision at the instance of the petitioners herein (who have a tacit support of respondent no. 4, DU) has acted against public interest (that is, patients and students) and is only focusing to serve the private interest of the employees and the staff of UCMS,” a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora said in a judgment passed on February 19 and made available on court’s website on Thursday.
The high court dismissed a batch of petitions filed by associations of teaching and non-teaching staff of UCMS challenging various orders passed by the Centre, Delhi government and the Delhi University to implement the Union cabinet’s August 25, 2005 decision to bring the UCMS and GTB Hospital under the unified control of the Delhi government. The GTB Hospital is the only tertiary care hospital run by the Delhi government in Trans-Yamuna area.
The bench also vacated its November 16, 2016 interim order staying the Union cabinet’s decision.
The Delhi government’s counsel told the court that UCMS required an estimated Rs 250 crore budgetary allocation which will be made.
A joint secretary in the city government’s health and public welfare department has filed an affidavit assuring the court that additional funds beyond Rs 250 crore will be made available to UCMS and GTB Hospital, if required.
“The undertaking of the Joint Secretary with Department of Health and Family Welfare, GNCTD given before this court that all requisite funds required for UCMS will be made available and budget will not be an issue is accepted by this court and taken on record. GNCTD is bound down to the said undertaking,” the bench said.
The petitioners working at UCMS had challenged the Centre’s decision over apprehension that their promotions, seniority, service conditions and timely payment of salary could be adversely affected if the institution is handed over to the Delhi government. They wanted DU to retain control of UCMS.
The court said the tussle between Delhi University and the city government has adversely affected the quality of medical services at GTB Hospital.
Also Read
“The report of the incident (of death of patient on January 2) post investigation has been placed on record by GNCTD and it tells a heart rending tale of death due to denial of medical facilities. The unavailability of the CT scan and its adverse effect on public health is a direct result of an uncalled-for tussle for administrative control over UCMS and GTB Hospital,” it said.
The court said the petitioners have stalled the implementation of the Centre’s decision harming public interest as the quality of service provided by the hospital has declined.
“The caution to be exercised by the constitutional court, while interfering with Cabinet decisions is well settled in the decisions of the Supreme Court. As a matter of rule, this court does not substitute its view in the decision of the government with regard to policy matters and administrative decisions, unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution.
“In the matter of policy decision by the Cabinet so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, the courts have no occasion to interfere and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive,” the bench added.
