Odisha HC Allows Doctor to Join Musculoskeletal Radiology Fellowship, Quashes NOC Denial
Orissa High Court
Cuttack: Granting relief to a doctor, undergoing bond service conditions, the Odisha High Court recently allowed her to pursue a fellowship in musculoskeletal (MSK) Radiology at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore.
Therefore, the Court has issued directions to the State Health authorities to issue the doctor, a medical officer in the district health service (DHS) cadre, a no-objection certificate (NOC) so that she can join the fellowship course.
"...the Opposite Parties are directed to grant NOC in favour of the Petitioner within a period of one week from the date of communication of a copy of this judgment by the Petitioner," ordered the HC bench comprising Aditya Kumar Mohapatra.
The petitioner doctor is currently serving her post-PG bond service as a senior resident in the radiology department at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. She approached the High Court bench after the Director of Medical Education and Training, Odisha, declined her request for an NOC via a letter dated April 10, 2025.
On the other hand, the State Government rejected the doctor's request for the NOC on the ground that the fellowship in Musculoskeletal Radiology was not in the list of NMC-approved courses as per the conditions laid down in the Resolution dated 29.01.2024 of the H&FW Department, Government of Odisha.
However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection of granting NOC was highly illegal and arbitrary, as there was no such restriction in the bond executed by the petitioner in 2020. The counsel pointed out that the petitioner had executed the bond in 2020, and the conditions of such bond were a replica of the Resolution dated 03.02.2017.
Thus, in the absence of any condition in the bond prohibiting the Petitioner in pursuing any fellowship programme, the conduct of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the request of the Petitioner for grant of NOC in favour of the Petitioner, thereby enabling her to join the fellowship programme, is highly illegal and without having authority to do so, argued the petitioner's counsel.
While considering the matter, the HC bench examined the bond executed by the petitioner on 20.06.2020 and noted that there was no embargo with regard to the petitioner applying for/joining in higher studies.
"The aforesaid condition mentioned in the bond executed by the Petitioner on 20.06.2020 is nothing but a replica of Clause-1(a) of the Resolution dated 03.02.2017 of the H&FW Department, Government of Odisha. On a careful scrutiny of the Resolution dated 03.02.2027, this Court observes that there is no other condition with regard to the higher studies other than Clause-1(a). Thus, it is the admitted position that the Petitioner has executed the bond on 20.06.2020 pursuant to the Resolution of the Government dated 03.02.2017 and that there is no denying the fact that she will be governed and guided by such conditions," observed the HC bench.
Referring to the question whether the rejection of the request of the petitioner for grant of NOC relying upon the Resolution dated 29.01.2024 was valid in law or not, the HC bench observed that while the petitioner executed the bond on 20.06.2020, her request for NOC was rejected by referring to the Resolution of the year 2021 and 2024.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court order in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents’s case, where while upholding the validity of the compulsory bond, the Supreme Court further observed that the doctors who have executed compulsory bond shall be bound by the conditions contained therein.
"It is needless to state here that the Petitioner shall be bound by the conditions to which she has agreed to and in respect of which a bond has been singed and executed by the Petitioner. In other words, the Petitioner shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the bond dated 20.06.2020," observed the HC bench.
The HC bench further noted that the petitioner executed the bond on 20.06.2020 based on the 2017 Resolution and subsequently, the conditions of the bond were changed by the virtue of Resolution of the year 2021 and 2024.
"However, the Petitioner is not a signatory to the bond conditions suggested by the aforesaid two Resolutions. Therefore, there is no dispute that the Petitioner cannot be compelled to abide by the conditions introduced by virtue of the Resolution of the year 2021 and 2024. The aforesaid position is clear from Paragraph-40 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed hereinabove wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has led emphasis that all doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein. Such finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court supports the view taken by the this Court in the instance case," observed the HC bench.
"Applying the aforesaid analysis and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that since the Petitioner has executed the bond on 20.06.2020, she shall be bound by the conditions of the bond dated 20.06.2020 and that the subsequent modification of bond conditions vide Resolution of the year 2021 and 2024 are not applicable to the Petitioner as neither she is a signatory to such bond conditions nor she has every given her consent or willingness to abide by the conditions introduced vide Resolution of the year years 2021 and 2024," concluded the bench.
Accordingly, the bench held that the petitioner was bound by the bond dated 20.06.2020 and the Clause-1(e) of 2021 and Clause-1(f) of 2024 Resolution were not applicable to the petitioner.
"As such, the impugned rejection order dated 10.04.2025 under Annexure-6 is highly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the decision vide Letter No.6224 dated 10.04.2025 under Annexure-6 is hereby quashed. Further, the Opposite Parties are directed to grant NOC in favour of the Petitioner within a period of one week from the date of communication of a copy of this judgment by the Petitioner," ordered the High Court bench.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/orissa-hc-smruti-snigdha-sahoo-vs-state-of-odisha-293267.pdf
