Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court

Termination Without Fair Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice: Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dental Internship Case

18 June 2025 11:06 AM

By: sayum


High Court mandates DCI to review representation within 15 days, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness and natural justice principles. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has intervened in a case concerning the termination of a dental student’s internship by the Dental Council of India (DCI). The bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Bhardwaj and Kirti Singh, has directed the DCI to decide on the petitioner Jasleen Kaur’s representation within 15 days, stressing the necessity of a fair hearing and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, Jasleen Kaur, completed her Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) degree in 8½ years, including a mercy chance granted by the university. Subsequently, she commenced her rotatory internship, which was later terminated by the DCI on the grounds that the period taken to complete her BDS exceeded the stipulated 9 years. Kaur challenged the termination, asserting that she was not given a fair hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The court underscored the importance of a fair hearing, emphasizing that decisions affecting an individual’s career and future must be taken judiciously. “The necessity of providing a fair chance to the petitioner before terminating her internship cannot be overstated,” the bench remarked. The court noted that the DCI had failed to consider Kaur’s representation before terminating her internship, which constituted a violation of natural justice.

The court directed the DCI to expedite the decision-making process regarding Kaur’s representation. “Respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the representation dated 06.06.2024 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order,” the judgment stated. This directive aims to ensure that the petitioner’s case is reviewed promptly and fairly.

The court granted interim relief to Kaur by staying the impugned termination order until the DCI reaches a decision on her representation. “Till then, the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 be kept in abeyance,” the court ordered, allowing Kaur to continue her internship temporarily.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj noted, “To meet the ends of justice, respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the representation within a period of 15 days and communicate the decision to the petitioner and the university.” This statement reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that the petitioner receives a fair opportunity to present her case.

The High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring fair treatment in administrative decisions. By mandating a timely review of Kaur’s representation, the court has provided her with a crucial opportunity to contest the termination of her internship. This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and is expected to influence similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework for administrative actions.

Date of Decision: 20th June 2024

Latest Legal News