Public health must not get adversely affected: Calcutta HC upholds denial of study leave to HoD Radiology
Calcutta High Court
Kolkata: Observing that the decision to grant study leave is taken by the authorities after ensuring that the public health services do not get adversely affected, the Calcutta High Court recently upheld the State Government's decision to deny study leave to a senior radiologist, an HoD at Sagar Dutta Hospital, Kamarhati.
"...the decision of the authority to grant study leave for pursuing higher qualification is to be based on several factors as taken note of above. The authority is required to consider the past services rendered by the Doctors, seeking study leave. The nature of course sought to be pursued with reference to its benefit for larger public interest during service tenure of the Doctor concerned is also to be considered. While granting such leave the State also has to ensure that availability of health services in public interest is not adversely affected in public charitable institutes, hospitals, health centers which are catering to public health care. Therefore, the decision to grant; or a circumstance requiring rejection of request for study leave is a decision to be taken by the authority having regard to such relevant factors, and the provisions contained in the rule(s) for grant of study leave, to serve the larger public interest," observed the HC bench comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas.
While considering the plea filed by Dr Das, the HC Division bench observed that the concerned doctor, who heads the radiology department at the state-run hospital, had already availed three years of government-sponsored trainee reserve leave earlier in his career for postgraduate training.
"Viewed thus we found from consideration of the facts and circumstances and study leave rules in the WBSR; that the petitioner earlier availed Government sponsored study leave. He has not been able to make out a case of discrimination in the matter of garnt of study leave/leave. While rejecting the petitioners claim the authority also considered the adverse impact of grant of such leave to the petitioner, on health care services at the hospital where he is posted since there is no other senior doctor in the concerned department...Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision of the Director of Medical Education West Bengal Dated 04.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for study leave for pursuing the Post- Doctoral Certificate Course in Neuroradiology at IPGME & R for the Session 2024-25," the HC bench observed while upholding the State Government's decision.
The petitioner sought study leave under the West Bengal Service Rules. However, his request was rejected by the Director on 04.09.2025, in larger public interest of patient care and services, keeping in view the scarcity of Senior Faculty in the Radiology Department at the petitioner’s present place of posting.
Thereafter, the petitioner challenged this decision. His counsel submitted that the petitioner was not pressing his claim for grant of benefit under the 2015 Rules. He was in fact, claiming leave under WBSR-I, to pursue the PDCC, and during the course, he submitted that he would not avail any salary. Therefore, the relief that he asked for was for grant of leave without pay under the WBSR Rules, 1974.
The petitioner alleged discrimination being meted out to him by the authorities. He submitted that the authorities were selectively considering the study leave application, as other doctors were granted study leave/leave under the Trainee Reserve Rules 2015. Therefore, he argued that the arbitrary and discriminatory grant of study leave to the doctors was to prejudice him.
On the other hand, the learned AAG for the State submitted that the petitioner had earlier availed benefit under the 2015 Rules. His service was covered by the 2015 Rules framed for his service and therefore, he cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions contained in the WBSR for grant of leave to him.
It was submitted that the Director, while disposing of the petitioner's leave application, took note of the fact that since he has already availed the three years' leave period, he was not anymore eligible for grant of such leave under the 2015 Rules.
The Director further dealt with the shortage of doctors in the department of Radiology at the Sagar Datta Hospital where the petitioner was posted. The Director stated that there was only one Professor (petitioner) and one Associate Professor in the Radiology Department. The Associate Professor was granted permission for pursuing the same course, and if both of them were allowed to pursue PDCC in Neuroradiology, at the same time that would lead to service difficulties and continued absence of both of them for a period of one year would inevitably lead to hardship to the patients requiring care in the concerned department. The petitioner’s prayer for one year leave to pursue the PDCC, therefore, in the opinion of the Director, could not be granted.
Observations by High Court:
While considering the matter, the HC bench observed, "We find that provision for grant of study leave is contained in appendix 5 of the WBSR part (1) wherein study-leave can be granted provided the proposed course of study or training is of definite advantage from the point of view of “public interest”."
Further referring to Section 1(6) and Section 2 of WBSR, the Court noted, "There is no dispute that the petitioner already availed a period of three years trainee reserve facility with full sponsorship for three years to pursue his Post-Graduate Course in Radiology from 31.05.2007 to 31.05.2010. From plain reading of Section 2 extracted above the petitioner having availed three years’ leave under 2015 Rules is not eligible for any further study leave under WBSR."
The court observed that another fact that was relevant to consider, was that apart from petitioner, who is Professor, there is one Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology at Sagar Datta Hospital Kamarhati, Kolkata, who also applied for one year leave for pursuing the PDCC course in Neuroradiology from IPGME & R, Kolkata for the same session 2024-25.
"If study leave is granted to both at the same time, the fact that the same would lead to great deficiency in healthcare services offered at the Hospital where the petitioner is posted in the Department of Radiology, cannot be denied. Continued absence of both petitioner and the Associate Processor would have an adverse effect resulting in deficiency of public health care services at the hospital in question. It, therefore, cannot be denied or disputed that both, petitioner as well as other Doctor (Associate Professor) cannot be allowed to proceed on study leave for pursuing the one-year PDCC Course at the same time," the HC bench observed at this outset.
"Such situation gives rise to a question whether grant of leave to the other Doctor (Associate Professor) and denial of the same to the petitioner is discriminatory as alleged by the petitioner. To sustain such allegation the petitioner was required to make out a case that the petitioner’s claim is at par with the claim of the other Doctor (Associate Professor). The petitioner was also required to implead other Doctor (Associate Professor) as a party respondent in the Original Application and the writ petition. But the petitioner has not done so. The other Doctor (Associate Professor) was not made a party," it also observed at this outset.
The bench also found that there was no material in the averment made in the OA or in the plea filed by the petitioner that the other Doctor (Associate Professor) who has been granted study leave had earlier availed three years Government sponsored leave under the 2015 Rules and was thus similarly situated as the petitioner.
"The plea of discrimination raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner with reference to the other doctor therefore cannot be considered for want of pleading in this regard. Such a plea also cannot be considered behind the back of the Associate Professor," the bench noted, further adding, "In view of our above consideration, we find that writ petitioner has not been able to make out a case of discrimination with any other Doctor in the matter of grant of study leave."
Therefore, the bench concluded that it was ultimately the State authority which had to consider the issue of granting study leave.
"We appreciate that acquisition of higher qualification should be encouraged. More so, when such acquisition of higher qualification is to subserve the public interest. But the decision of the authority to grant study leave for pursuing higher qualification is to be based on several factors as taken note of above. The authority is required to consider the past services rendered by the Doctors, seeking study leave. The nature of course sought to be pursued with reference to its benefit for larger public interest during service tenure of the Doctor concerned is also to be considered," observed the bench while dismissing the plea filed by the petitioner for grant of study leave.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/calcutta-hc-317036.pdf
