HC denies relief to govt doctor, upholds hospital's seniority based sponsorship for PG medical seat
Delhi High Court
New Delhi: Denying the grant of relief to a government doctor seeking a No Objection Certificate and study leave to pursue a postgraduate course in Nuclear Medicine at PGIMER, Chandigarh, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the decision of the authorities to give priority to seniority while deciding which candidate should get the only sponsorship slot.
The concerned doctor challenged the Office Memorandum dated 19 December 2025 that refused him an NOC and study leave for pursuing his PG medical studies at PGIMER Chandigarh.
However, the HC bench observed that where the applicable standard operating procedure did not prescribe a tie-breaker criterion and only one sponsorship slot was available, deciding inter se entitlement on seniority was a relevant and permissible factor.
"It is admitted position by the parties that the SOP does not provide the criteria to be followed in eventuality of two candidates seeking study leave and only one is to be allowed...In the present case the issue was decided relying upon the seniority of the candidates which is a relevant factor for arriving at the decision. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan.
The petitioner, a government medical officer, joined his posting on 18 September 2020 with the Directorate General of Health Services under the Government of NCT of Delhi. Consequently, in April 2022, he was transferred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.
On 30 September 2025, AIIMS New Delhi invited applications for PG courses and the petitioner on October 1, 2025, applied for permission to appear in the entrance test under the sponsored category. Permission was granted on 30 October 2025.
Based on the results, declared on 15 November 2025, the petitioner was allotted a postgraduate seat in Nuclear Sciences at PGIMER Chandigarh. However, on 19 December 2025, the hospital rejected the petitioner's request for study leave and NOC, stating that only three doctors could be sponsored at a time and two were already pursuing postgraduate courses. Since both the petitioner and a private respondent had qualified, only one of them could be sponsored and the sponsorship was given to the senior candidate.
Challenging the OM before the HC, the petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner should have been granted the sponsorship being higher in merit to the private respondent.
However, in this regard, the HC bench observed, "The contention of the petitioner that merit in the entrance test to the post graduation courses should form the basis for sanctioning the study leave, lacks merit. The merit in the entrance test is for allocation of seat and the nature of course to be offered to the candidate and not for purposes of solving inter se disputes between the two candidates of the same institution with regard to the sponsorship and grant of study leave."
"The argument that the petitioner should be transferred to another hospital where the number of the officers to be sponsored for post graduation courses is more is ill-founded. The number of the officers stipulated for joining the post graduation courses in Clause 28 of the OM dated 02.11.2012 is on the basis of the sanctioned strength in an organization/institute. The rationale of the restriction as argued by counsel for the GNCTD need not be gone into in absence of a challenge to the OM and the number of seats stipulated therein. The other angle to be considered is the sanctioned strength of the officers is to be seen of the organization/institute and not that of the employer that is GNCTD in this case. Clause 24 of the OM dated 02.11.2012 provides that in place of the officer pursuing the higher studies no substitute shall be provided, the officer continues to be borne on strength of that organization and shall re-join the same organisation on completion of the study," it further noted.
The court also rejected the argument that after permission was granted to apear in the entrance test, the study leave could not be denied. It held, "At the time of granting permission for appearing in the entrance test the considerations are different and only the eligibility of the candidate for availing the sponsorship is to be gone into. An eligible candidate at that stage cannot be ousted by considering the number of candidates who can be sent for post graduation courses. The number of the candidates qualifying in entrance test for post graduation courses at that time is not before the competent authority. No vested right for sponsorship accrues in favour of the petitioner by grant of the permission to appear in the entrance exam."
It was observed by the HC bench that earlier as well, GTB Hospital had sanctioned the study leave of applicants, taking into consideration the seniority of the applicants.
In 2023, four doctors qualified the entrance test for post graduation courses, including respondent no. 5 but the sponsorship and study leave was to be sanctioned to one candidate and the decision was taken on the basis of seniority denying the sponsorship and the study leave to respondent No 5. With the change of criteria at this stage grave prejudice would be caused to respondent no. 5, earlier she was denied sponsorship for not being the senior most amongst the successful candidates and now she would be ousted by considering the merit in the entrance test, noted the court.
Accordingly, relying on judicial precedence, the HC bench held that the order passed was "neither arbitrary nor irrational; the view taken is possible one."
Dismissing the plea, it observed, "The impugned order suffers from no legal or factual error much less perversity, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications stand dismissed."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-gtb-hospital-sponsorship-320168.pdf
