Delhi High Court
Dr. Ms Jyotsna Sharma vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 February, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5158/2012
% 9th February, 2015
DR. MS JYOTSNA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.S. Mehandru, Advocate.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Nos.15052/2014 (restoration) & 15053/2014 (condonation of delay)
1. There is no opposition to these applications which are therefore
allowed. Writ petition is restored to its original number.
C.M.s stand disposed of.
+ W.P.(C) No.5158/2012
2. By this writ petition of the year 2012 filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought quashing and setting aside of
the order of the employer/respondent no.2/A.R.S.D College dated 23.1.2004
whereby the resignation of the petitioner was accepted. Petitioner states that
petitioner's resignation could not have been accepted inasmuch as petitioner
had vide her letter dated 11.2.2004 withdrawn her resignation, and the
resignation was only subsequently accepted by the governing body of the
college/employer on 14.2.2004.
3. On account of gross delay and laches in filing of this writ
petition, on 15.2.2013 the following order was passed by this Court:-
"1. The argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that for a
substantial number of years i.e. from 2004 to 2012, the petitioner was
under mental incapacity. There is however no averment in the wit
petition that the petitioner was unable to understand anything at all in
this period for her to comprehend the aspect of her resignation
having been accepted or not or communicated or not. No doubt a
medical certificate dated 2.10.2011 is filed, however, it is required
that the Doctor or Doctors who was/were treating the petitioner from
2004 to 2012 must state that for the entire period of the aforesaid
years the petitioner was in such mental condition so as to
incomprehend any normal activity around her for this entire period.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that he will file an
appropriate medical certificate which specifically uses this language
of incomprehensibility of the petitioner to understand anything
around her during the period of from the years 2004 to 2012, and
also an additional affidavit will be filed.
3. Let the needful be done within a period of 2 weeks from
today.
4. List on 25th April, 2013."
4. In response to the said order, the petitioner filed an affidavit
dated 22.9.2014 supported by the following certificate dated 10.4.2013 of
one doctor Sh. Umesh Sharma and which reads as under:-
" To Whom It Concern 10.4.2013
Further to our report of dated 02.10.2011 regarding treatment and
mental status of Ms Jyotsna Sharma D/O Shri I K Sharma. As the
honourable court has desired to know the mental status of Jyotsna
Sharma during the period of treatment. The mental status is being
given in six domain areas:
Domains
1. Attitude-uncooperative, hostile, guarded, suspicious
2. Behaviour-experiencing hallucinations, lack of eye contact
3. Thought-process-poverty of thought
4. Perceptions-distortion of a sensory experience
5. Cognition-capacity to make decisions poor
6. Judgment-impulsiveness, poor-self-awareness
Under these status it was not possible function at the level of professor
Now she is perfectly norma
Sd/-
Dr Umesh Sharma
Director Samvedna"
5. Today, once again another certificate is filed of the same doctor
which is undated and which is given pursuant to the liberty granted by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on the last date of hearing viz 10.11.2014
and this certificate reads as under:-
" To Whom It Concern
Further to our report of dated 02.10.2011 regarding treatment and
mental status of Ms Jyotsna Sharma D/O Shri I K Sharma. As the
honourable court has desired to know the mental status of Jyotsna
Sharma during the period of treatment. The mental status is being
given in six domain areas:
Domains
1. Attitude-uncooperative, hostile, guarded, suspicious
2. Behaviour-experiencing hallucinations, lack of eye contact
3. Thought-process-poverty of thought
4. Perceptions-distortion of a sensory experience
5. Cognition-capacity to make decisions poor
6. Judgment-impulsiveness, poor-self-awareness
Under these statuses it was not possible to function at the level of
professor where fine cognitive level is required.
Now she is perfectly normal and can function at required level.
Sd/-
Dr Umesh Sharma
Director Samvedna"
6. A reading of the two certificates shows that essentially the
certificates, leave apart from some minor language, are identical and let us
therefore consider both these certificates given by Dr. Umesh Sharma,
whether they will entitle the petitioner in condonation of gross delay and
laches in challenging the order of the year 2004 in the year 2012.
7. Petitioner in terms of the order dated 15.2.2013 was required to
file a specific certificate that in the entire period from the year 2004 to 2012
petitioner was not in such a mental condition to understand what was
happening around her for this entire period from the year 2004 to
2012, however, the certificates as filed by the petitioner do not show the
period of treatment of the petitioner for the period from the year 2004 to
2012 and in fact the certificates are totally silent as to what was the period of
treatment of the petitioner. In fact, petitioner alongwith the writ petition had
filed various medical prescriptions of different hospitals being G.B. Pant
Hospital, Saroj Hospital, Ahuja Hospital and Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar
Hospital etc, and which hospitals with respect to the treatment of the
petitioner, are different from the certificate given of one organization
Samvedna of D-72, Sector 122, Noida 201307 and which is signed by said
Dr. Umesh Sharma. Obviously, therefore the certificate which is now filed
cannot in any manner in the least said to be in compliance of the order dated
15.2.2013 and petitioner has not filed before this Court any document
showing that she was in such mental capacity for the entire period from the
year 2004 to 2012 so that in this period she could not reasonably understand,
and only in which circumstances the petitioner could have claimed
condonation of delay from the year 2004 to 2012. Thus the petitioner has
not filed any documents whatsoever of her lack of mental capacity of a
reasonable person from the year 2004 to 2012, and therefore this writ
petition in the year 2012 cannot be entertained to question the action of the
respondent no.2/employer/A.R.S.D College of the year 2004. What cannot
be done within a limitation period for a suit, cannot be done by filing a writ
petition because ordinarily what cannot be done directly, cannot also be
done indirectly. There are no grounds to exercise discretion to condone the
large period of delay in this case.
8. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 09, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
