MBBS Doctor denied study leave to pursue PG, HC upholds Medical College's stand on not risking NMC recognition

Justice Sujoy Paul, presiding over the case, recognized the doctor's genuine aspirations but also acknowledged the college's plausible concern, emphasizing that the interests of the institution and public interest should be prioritised over individual aspirations.

The petitioner Dr Soni, a demonstrator/tutor in the physiology department at Birsa Munda Government Medical College, District Shahdol, had approached the High Court seeking a directive to the authorities of the Government Medical College, Shahdol for a three-year study leave to complete her PG course. However, the medical college management declined her request, citing potential risks to their recognition by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC).

The petitioner had participated in the NEET-PG exam in February 2023 with the college's permission, and obtained a score of 478/800 and rank of 24066. The petitioner then preferred an application dated 17.07.2023 seeking permission to participate in the counseling of NEET PG, 2023. In addition, the petitioner preferred representations dated 19.07.2023 and 20.07.2023 praying for grant of education/study leave for a period of three years as she has completed 05 years of service and eligible for three years of education leave as per Rule 12(1)(6) of Adarsh Sewa Niyam.

Despite successfully clearing the exam and undergoing counselling, her request for a three-year study leave was denied, and she was informed that in view of norms prescribed by National Medical Commission (Commission) and the present shortage of medical teachers, her study leave application cannot be accepted.

In response, she approached the court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sankalp Kochar, submitted that the impugned order is bad in law because while granting permission to write the PG Examination, an impression was created that petitioner will be permitted to take admission in PG Course as well. "Thus, legitimate expectation theory comes into play. In the rejection order, the respondents have not stated that decision is taken in ‘public interest’," Kochar said.

He further stated that, "As per the stand taken in the reply, there are four sanctioned posts of Demonstrator/Tutor, out of which one is lying vacant for want of suitable candidate. If the respondents have not filled-up the said post, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and cannot be deprived from the fruits of her selection in NEET PG, 2023 and the respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong in not filling up the vacant post. The deficiency of Demonstrator/Tutor can be taken care of by a person holding a higher post. The impugned order is not fair and reasonable. The department lost sight of the fact that if petitioner avails study leave and is equipped with a higher degree/knowledge, she will serve the department with better knowledge for a further period of almost three years."

Meanwhile, the government counsel, Shri Lalit Joglekar, argued against granting her leave due to "unavoidable circumstances," pointing out that the college had four demonstrators/tutors positions, one of which was vacant. Granting a three-year study leave to the doctor could jeopardize the college's recognition by the NMC.

Joglekar submitted that impugned order dated is passed in consonance with the Niyam, further adding that, "The decision so taken is in the interest of institution as well as in public interest. In view of paucity of Demonstrator/Tutor, petitioner’s study leave cannot be sanctioned. He urged that if the petitioner is granted study leave for three years, the minimum criteria prescribed by the Commission regarding availability of minimum number of teachers will be violated which may have potential of revocation of permission granted to Shahdol Medical College to impart education. Thus, in larger interest of institution and in public interest, such a decision is taken which does not require any interference."

After going through the submissions and arguments, the court firstly talked about "Leave as a Right" and stated;

"A conjoint reading of Rule 6 of Leave Rules, 1977 and the Niyam makes it clear that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The competent authority has discretion to grant or refuse the leave and even cancel a leave already granted in exigency of service/public interest."

In context of the legitimate expectation theory as mentioned by the petitioner, the court clarified that while granting permission, the department made it clear that permission so granted was confined to submitting application for participating in the examination. It said;

"The permission was not granted to take admission in the P.G. Course. The department was perhaps expecting that by the time result will be declared, the post might be filled up through recruitment or by any other mode. Thus, permission, in the opinion of this Court was not a permission for taking admission in the P.G. Course."

The court further paid attention to the government counsel's submission who argued against granting study leave to the petitioner, citing potential disruption in staff criteria and risks to the college's recognition. However, the petitioner's counsel didn't counter this concern, stating higher post doctors can manage the Demonstrator/Tutor duties. In this factual backdrop, the court observed;

"There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of the department that non-grant of study leave to take admission is founded upon the ground that paucity of Demonstrator/Tutor may have drastic result and even the recognition of the Medical College can be at stake. Thus, pivotal question is whether in this backdrop, the principle of legitimate expectation can be pressed into service. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. The doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the Court for review of administrative action. However, as noticed above, the petitioner was never given to understand while granting her permission on 19/01/2023 that it will follow with grant of study leave and permission to take admission."

It further noted;

"Legitimate expectation theory cannot be pressed into service in this case. When there is a conflict between personal interest and institutional/public interest, public interest must outweigh the legitimate expectation of a person."

Consequently, the court highlighted that the permission granted for the petitioner to appear in the NEET-PG exam did not entail permission to enroll in a PG course. Referring to the MP civil service rules, the judge emphasized that leave is not an absolute right of an employee and can be denied or revoked in cases of administrative exigencies. It explained;

"In the rejection order dated 31/07/2023 (Annexure P/10) it was made clear in so many words that in view of criteria fixed by the Commission, study leave cannot be granted considering the paucity of teachers. This reason, in my judgment, talks about interest of institution in particular and public interest in general. Thus, merely because the expression ‘public interest’ is not used in the rejection letter dated 31/07/2023 (Annexure P/10), it cannot be said that the said decision was not taken in institutional/public interest."

"In this case, lis is not regarding examining the reasons and justification for not filling up the vacant post of Demonstrator/Tutor in respondent No.2-Medical College. Thus, it will not be proper to comment on this aspect. The admitted facts make it clear that one post of Demonstrator/Tutor is lying vacant and it was not rebutted that if any further post becomes vacant, the sword of cancellation of recognition will hang on the Medical College. Thus, it cannot be said that respondents are taking benefit of their own wrong. This Court was unable to persuade itself with the line of argument that deficiency of Demonstrator/Tutor can be taken care of by person holding the higher post."

"The case in hand is governed by the Leave Rules and the Niyam which gives authority to the respondents to take a decision on the prayer for study leave in institutional / public interest. The rejection of study leave, as held above, can not be held to be against public interest."

Subsequently, the court turned down the petition of the doctor and held;

"The reason for which petitioner’s claim for study leave was declined, cannot be said to be against institutional / public interest or arbitrary or unfair in nature. The petitioner may be right in contending that if she is equipped with higher education, she will be able to serve the department / patients with more efficiency, but it cannot be forgotten that department is not ready to risk its recognition on the cost of higher education of the petitioner. The department, in my view, has taken a plausible view...In view of foregoing analysis, no case is made out for interference. Resultantly and reluctantly, the petition is dismissed."

To view the original judgement, click on the link below: