Student loses legal battle against CMC
The failure of a nursing student to abide by the Sponsorship Obligation Agreement (SOA) and the institution withholding her certificates for failing to abide by the agreement resulted in the former accusing the latter of being akin to ‘Shylock invoking the clause of pound of flesh for enforcement of default clause’ while the institute accused the nurse of being a ‘bull in a China shop’ (careless in the way they move or behave).
Chennai
However, a division bench of the Madras high court comprising Justice S. Vimala and Justice S. Ramathilagam on going through the rival contentions of the petitioner/appellant S Austin Blessie and the respondent-The Christian Medical College, Vellore, ruled in favour of the later.
“Some kinds of work are regarded as more fulfilling or more dignified. Thus, the terms vocation, career or profession or occupation all carry slightly higher prestige than the word job. Without understanding the significance, the appellant is refusing to work for the needy. The refusal is unjustified. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to ask for return of certificate,” the bench said.
The petitioner joined the B.Sc. nursing course, sponsored by CSI Diocese, Vellore, and entered into an agreement by which she was required to serve in one of the institutions of the body for a minimum of two years. But on completion of the course, the petitioner wanted to pursue higher studies in hospital administration and hence wrote a letter on September 18, 2012 seeking to break the bond. But, CMC, Vellore, rejected the request.
Following this, she moved the high court in 2013 and a single judge ruled that the petitioner had acted contrary to terms and conditions of the contract and therefore, can’t invoke the writ jurisdiction. Challenging the same, she moved an appeal.
Her counsel submitted that appellant had offered to pay some compensation from breaking the bond, but CMC, Vellore, is only keen on the pound of flesh like Shylock and has been successfully withholding the certificates for the past six years. On the other hand, the college had contended that the appellant’s conduct is that of a ‘bull in a china shop’ and having committed a mistake of failing to fulfil the obligation she is not entitled to the ethical remedy of getting the certificates returned.
However, the bench while dismissing the appeal held “In this case, the appellant thinks that money is a key motivating factor. But when the situation improves, and money becomes sufficient or abundant, it loses its importance. Security, good working conditions, opportunity for promotion, mental satisfaction, status etc., usually become more important.”
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android