The lecturer, who moved the High Court in 2021 and had now been vaccinated, was allowed by the court to make representation to the concerned authority on the question of service benefits. The court said the “decision on the same shall be taken within 30 days". While hearing a petition of a government school lecturer who prayed that she should be allowed to teach without being forced to get vaccinated against Covid-19, the Delhi High Court recently said employers cannot insist on the shot. A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh in its January 18 decision observed, “In view of the above-mentioned orders relating to similar fact situations, the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of with the direction that Covid-19 vaccination cannot be insisted upon by the employer, in terms of the various orders passed above”. The lecturer, who moved the High Court in 2021 and had now been vaccinated, was allowed by the court to make representation to the concerned authority on the question of service benefits. The court said the “decision on the same shall be taken within 30 days”. When the lecturer said the representation had been made on June 14, 2022, the High Court directed, “Let the copy of the said representation be forwarded with a fresh covering letter to ld. Counsel for the Respondents within 1 week”. It also directed the Delhi Government and Directorate of Education (DoE) to take a decision on the representation within four weeks. The lecturer taught history to Class 11 and 12 at DoE’s Government Girls Senior Secondary School, New Usmanpur, Gautam Puri. She claimed she had been “forcefully marked absent” from October 16, 2021, as she was not vaccinated and sought a direction seeking service benefits for such days and that “leaves thrust upon her may not be debited from her Leave Account”. While coming to its decision, the High Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India & Ors, [2022]. In the case, the top court had held, “With respect to the infringement of bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual considered in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected Under Article 21 of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated”. The Supreme Court had also said that the personal autonomy of an individual, which is recognised protection guaranteed under Article 21, “encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health”. It had, however, said when it comes to the protection of communitarian health, the Government is entitled to regulate issues of public health concern by imposing certain limitations on individual rights, which are open to scrutiny by constitutional courts. The scrutiny entails whether such invasion into an individual’s right to personal autonomy and right to access means of livelihood meets the threefold requirement as laid down in K S Puttaswamy, i.e., (i) legality, which presupposes the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. The High Court also relied on a 2022 decision of the Delhi HC in Narendra Kumar vs Govt of NCT of Delhi where the Delhi Government had submitted that in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the Jacob Puliyel case, no employer was insisting upon compulsory vaccination and that all employees had been permitted to re-join their posts without the stipulation of vaccination being mandated. The High Court, in this case, had permitted the petitioners to rejoin their posts. The order in the Narendra Kumar case was taken note of in other pleas moved by similarly placed individuals. In view of these two decisions, the lecturer’s plea was disposed of with the observation “that all remedies are left open”.