Telangana High Court
Dr. Sudeep Veer vs The Union Of India on 27 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:
HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION No.10934 of 2026
Between:
Dr. Sudeep Veer.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The Union of India and 3 Others.
Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 27.04.2026
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Page 2 of 23
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
+ WRIT PETITION No.10934 of 2026
% 27.04.2026
# Between:
Dr. Sudeep Veer.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The Union of India and 3 Others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy.
^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1) Civil Appeal No.2739 of 2021, decided on 15.07.2021.
Page 3 of 23
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Writ Petition No.10934 of 2026
Date of Order : 27.04.2026
BETWEEN :
Dr. Sudeep Veer
...Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India
and 3 others
...Respondents
ORDER :
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance
of a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in O.A.No.381 of 2026 on
the file of Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Hyderabad Bench;
to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not granting “No
Objection Certificate” (NOC) and Extraordinary Leave (EOL) to the
petitioner to pursue Super-speciality Course in D.M. (Neurology),
NEET SS – 2025 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of
Page 4 of 23
Railway Board’s Letter No.2022/E (GR) II/1/1, dated 06.02.2023 and
also violative of petitioner’s fundamental right guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner;
and Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India,
for the respondents.
3. The brief facts which led to filing of the instant writ petition are
that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Medical Officer
(Group-A) with the Indian Railways on 10.05.2016. The appointment
of petitioner was upon his securing the combined Medical Services
Examination, 2014 and on being duly recommended by the Union
Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.) as also the Ministry of Railways.
While serving as Medical Officer, the petitioner on due permission
from the employer, appeared in the NEET PG – 2020 which he got
cleared and got admission into P.G. (General Medicine) at AFMC, Pune.
Thereafter, the petitioner was granted permission to proceed for the
said P.G. course and was also granted study leave from July, 2020 to
June, 2023. Subsequently, in the year 2025, the petitioner had
planned to appear in the NEET Super-Speciality Course – 2025 and
was called upon for counselling. The petitioner participated in the
first round of counselling which was held from 10.03.2026 to
Page 5 of 23
16.03.2026, and the results thereof were declared on 18.03.2026. The
petitioner stood successful in the first round of counselling itself and
he was allowed to pursue D.M. Neurology from Sanjay Gandhi Post-
Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. The petitioner
thereafter applied to the respondent-Authorities for grant of “No
Objection Certificate” as also for grant of Study Leave for the aforesaid
prestigious course by stating that he had got admission in a
prestigious institution in D.M. Neurology. It is this request of
petitioner which had been refused which led to filing of O.A., viz.,
O.A.No.381 of 2026 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for
short the ‘Tribunal’), Hyderabad Bench. Vide order dated 07.04.2026;
the learned Division Bench of the Tribunal admitted the case and
directed issuance of notice to the respondent-Authorities. However,
no interim order was granted in favour of petitioner.
4. Aggrieved, the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
5. It would be necessary at this juncture to refer to the reasons for
which the application of petitioner for grant of “No Objection
Certificate” as also for grant of study leave stood rejected, viz., (a) the
representation was not forwarded by the petitioner through proper
channel; (b) the petitioner had already availed 3 years of Study Leave
Page 6 of 23
earlier for pursuing M.D. (General Medicine); and (c) no prior
permission / No Objection Certificate was obtained by the petitioner
for appearing in NEET-SS.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India contended that grant
of NOC and sanction of Extraordinary Leave (EOL) for pursuing
further higher studies is governed by the applicable Railway Board
instructions and is a matter of administrative policy and discretion,
not an enforceable right. The competent authority is required to
balance individual aspirations with the paramount requirement of
ensuring uninterrupted public service delivery. Therefore, the
respondent submits that the decision to decline NOC/EOL was taken
as a policy-based administrative decision, keeping in view the
operational requirements of the Health Unit and the service interest of
the organization and therefore does not warrant interference unless
shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further contended that
the petitioner is posted in a critical set-up where specialist manpower
is already scarce and permitting long-term absence would adversely
impact patient care and day-to-day functioning. He also submitted
that the Railways caters to a substantial beneficiary population and
continuity of medical services cannot be compromised, particularly,
Page 7 of 23
the availability of neurology / specialist doctors is limited and the
petitioner’s prolonged absence would create a vacuum which cannot
be readily filled at short notice, thereby resulting in administrative
exigency and public inconvenience. Hence, refusal of NOC / EOL is
justified on the ground of genuine staffing constraints and
institutional necessity.
8. Lastly, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India contended
that the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of leave /
permission earlier for pursuing NEET PG studies (M.D./PG), and
repeated long-term absence for successive higher courses is not
ordinarily contemplated as a matter of routine. Granting EOL again for
another multiple-year for super-speciality course would set an
unworkable precedent and disrupt cadre management. Therefore,
considering the petitioner has already availed such benefit for PG, the
competent authority reasonably exercised discretion to decline the
request in the overall service interest, and the decision cannot be
characterised as discriminatory merely because the petitioner seeks
EOL.
9. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary
Page 8 of 23
Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. 1, wherein in paragraph Nos.28
to 43, it was held as under, viz.,
“28. The question of whether a meritorious candidate, denied
admission to a medical course, can be accommodated in that
course in the following academic year, was considered by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P. [S.
Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] The Court
held : (SCC p. 477, para 12)
“12. However, the question is with respect to a student,
a meritorious candidate for no fault of his/her has
been denied admission illegally and who has pursued
his/her legal rights expeditiously and without delay is
entitled to any relief of admission more particularly in
the courses like MBBS … The aforesaid question is
required to be considered only to the cases where (i) no
fault in attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidate
has pursued her rights and legal remedies
expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there is
fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach
of rules and regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to
be more meritorious then the last candidate who has
been given admission.”
29. In S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P.,
(2020) 17 SCC 465] this Court directed as follows : (SCC pp. 478-
79, para 13)
“13. In light of the discussion/observations made
hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has
1
Civil Appeal No.2739 of 2021, decided on 15.07.2021
Page 9 of 23
been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or
irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her
and who has approached the Court in time and so as
to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have
to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the
reference as under:
13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without any
delay and that the question is with respect to the
admission in medical course all the efforts shall be
made by the court concerned to dispose of the
proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.
13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court
finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate
and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right
expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only
on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent
breach of rules and regulations as well as related
principles in the process of grant of admission which
would violate the right of equality and equal treatment
to the competing candidates and if the time schedule
prescribed–30th September, is over, to do the complete
justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and
in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same
year by directing to increase the seats, however, it
should not be more than one or two seats and such
admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e.
within one month from 30th September i.e. cut-off date
and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any
admission in the same year beyond 30th October.
Page 10 of 23
However, it is observed that such relief can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of
rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court
may also pass an order cancelling the admission given
to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of
the category who, if the admission would have been
given to a more meritorious candidate who has been
denied admission illegally, would not have got the
admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper,
however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a
student whose admission is sought to be cancelled.
13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the
very academic year and wherever it finds that the
action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in
breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus
affecting the rights of the students and that a
candidate is found to be meritorious and such
candidate/student has approached the court at the
earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the
relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a
candidate in the next academic year by issuing
appropriate directions by directing to increase in the
number of seats as may be considered appropriate in
the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is
found that the management was at fault and wrongly
denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in
that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of
seats in the management quota of that year, meaning
thereby the student/students who was/were denied
admission illegally to be accommodated in the next
Page 11 of 23
academic year out of the seats allotted in the
management quota.
13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional
remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.
Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award
the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who
for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic
year and who could not be granted any relief of
admission in the same academic year.
13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain
to admission in MBBS course only and we have not
dealt with postgraduate medical course.”
30. The judgment in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v.
State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] was rendered in the context of
admission to the MBBS course and not to a postgraduate course.
However, in National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah
Koumudi [National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah
Koumudi, (2021) 14 SCC 805 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992] , this
Court held : (National Medical Commission case [National Medical
Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, (2021) 14 SCC 805 :
2020 SCC OnLine SC 992] , SCC para 15)
“15. As the dispute in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna
Sradha v. State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] pertained
to admission to the undergraduate MBBS course, this
Court held that they have not dealt with the
postgraduate medical courses. Mr Parameshwar
argued that there is no reason why the logic behind the
judgment in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v.
State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] should not be made
Page 12 of 23
applicable to postgraduate courses. We find force in the
said argument of Mr Parameshwar. This Court was
only dealing with the admission to the MBBS course for
which reason directions given in the said judgment
were restricted to the MBBS course. Directions issued
in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v. State of
A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] can be made applicable to
admission to postgraduate courses as well.”
31. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments of
this Court in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P.,
(2020) 17 SCC 465] and in National Medical Commission v.
Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi [National Medical Commission v.
Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, (2021) 14 SCC 805 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 992] is that in rare and exceptional cases, a
meritorious candidate, who has suffered injustice by reason of
his/her inability to secure admission in a medical course, whether
undergraduate or postgraduate, due to no fault of his/her own,
who has taken recourse to law promptly, without delay, might be
granted relief of being accommodated in the same post in the next
session.
32. Of course, the judgments in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna
Sradha v. State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] and in National
Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi [National
Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, (2021) 14
SCC 805 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992] are clearly distinguishable,
in that the petitioners concerned had wrongfully and illegally been
denied admission by disqualifying them. The appellant, on the
other hand, cleared Inicet-2020 and was allotted a seat in the
postgraduate course in Paediatrics. PGI, Chandigarh had also
Page 13 of 23
acceded to the request of the appellant to extend the last date of
admission. Unfortunately the appellant was refused study leave.
33. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority for the issue
of law which is raised and decided. What is binding on the courts
is what the Supreme Court decides under Article 141 and not
what the Supreme Court does under Article 142, in exercise of its
power to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending
before it.
34. To quote V. Sudhish Pai from Constitutional Supremacy–A
Revisit:
“Judgments and observations in judgments are not to
be read as Euclid’s theorems or as provisions of statute.
Judicial utterances/pronouncements are in the setting
of the facts of a particular case. To interpret words and
provisions of a statute it may become necessary for
Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions, but such
discussion is meant to explain not define. Judges
interpret statutes, their words are not to be interpreted
as statutes.”
35. All the conditions set forth in para 12 of the
judgment in S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v.
State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] quoted above, would
not therefore, be verbatim applicable in the
distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case,
for grant of the rare and extraordinary relief of
admission to the same course in the next academic
year. The broad principles laid down by this Court for
admission to the same course in the following session,
would have to be followed, to the extent feasible, to
Page 14 of 23
advance the cause of justice, but not with pedantic
rigidity.
36. In this case, the appellant has not been able to
take admission to the MD Course in Paediatrics, which
commenced in January 2021, in circumstances entirely
beyond his control, in spite of being selected for
admission after successfully clearing the highly
competitive Inicet 2020. Unfortunately, the appellant
was not granted study leave from the respondents
concerned, for reasons not attributable to him. The
appellant was not at fault. But then PGI, Chandigarh
was also not at fault. The appellant also approached
the High Court promptly, well before the admission
was closed.
37. Having regard to the circumstances in which the
appellant has been declined study leave, it cannot also
be said that Respondents 1 and 2 have acted beyond
the parameters of law. Nevertheless, the appellant has
suffered injustice, because of the denial of study leave,
in that he has been deprived of the opportunity to
pursue higher studies, which many other doctors have
availed. It would be unfair to deny the appellant the
opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his efforts even now,
when the Covid-19 situation has improved and is in
control, only because the respondents have not
committed “apparent breach of rules and regulations”
in refusing the appellant study leave. This Court
cannot fold its arms and remain a mute spectator to the
plight of the appellant. After all, “nothing rankles the
heart more than a brooding sense of injustice.”
Page 15 of 23
38. In S. Krishna Sradha [S. Krishna Sradha v. State
of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465] , the condition of “fault on
the part of the authorities and apparent breach of rules
and regulations” for grant of the relief of admission to
the next session to a candidate wrongly denied
admission in an earlier session, is a sequel to and
flows from the condition that there should be no fault
on the part of that candidate. The Court has elaborated
on the condition of “no fault of the candidate” to ensure
that relief is not claimed as a matter of right for any
lapse or infraction of rules on the part of the candidate
by recourse to the plea of the candidate not being at
fault. To cite an example, an individual candidate
cannot as a matter of right claim relief when for
inability to fulfil a condition of admission for reasons
such as computer crash at his end, inability to raise
funds within time for payment of admission fees,
inability to adhere to time schedules by reason of
vehicular breakdown, illness, bereavement, etc. which
may not be within the control of the candidate, as
otherwise it would be impossible for educational
institutions to complete the admission process, in time,
when there are a large number of applicants.
39. In this case, there has not been any lapse on the
part of the appellant. The appellant could not join the
postgraduate course in PGI Chandigarh for the
January 2021 session for reasons attributable to
Respondents 1 and 2 though technically, the said
respondents cannot be said to have acted illegally or in
breach of rules and regulations, in denying the
appellant study leave, in apprehension of rise in Covid-
Page 16 of 23
19 cases and the exigency of availability of doctors in
full strength, as far as possible.
40. The appellant, who could not join the postgraduate
course, due to the denial of study leave by the
Government pursuant to a legitimate policy decision
and in response to the call of duty, cannot now be
denied relief on the hypertechnical ground that
Respondents 1 and 2 had not breached any rules or
regulations. It would be a travesty of justice to deny
relief to the appellant, when the appellant had to make
a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to
serve the cause of humanity.
41. Since the seat in the postgraduate course in PGI
Chandigarh which remained unfilled due to the
inability of the appellant to join has been carried over
to the July 2021 session which is yet to commence,
and re-advertised, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the PGI, Chandigarh, being Respondent 3 to
admit the appellant to the postgraduate course
scheduled to commence in July 2021, on the basis of
Inicet 2020, which he has successfully cleared.
Respondent 1 shall reconsider the application of the
appellant for study leave, taking into consideration the
decline in Covid-19 cases in NCT of Delhi, and take a
reasonable decision in favour of the appellant. Unless
there is a substantial rise in Covid-19 cases, the leave
application of the appellant shall not be declined.
42. These directions are being passed in exercise of
the power of this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of
Page 17 of 23
this case, having regard to the fact that the appellant
had cleared Inicet 2020 held in November 2020 and
had been offered admission to PGI, Chandigarh, but
could not join as he was not released on study leave in
view of the serious Covid-19 situation prevailing in NCT
of Delhi at the material time, and this order will not be
treated as a precedent.
43. The appeal is, disposed of, accordingly. The
impugned judgment [Rohit Kumar v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3175] and order of the
Division Bench of the High Court, and judgment and
order of the Single Bench of the High Court dated 2-2-
2021 [Rohit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2021) 1
HCC (Del) 218] are set aside.”
10. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s request for
grant of NOC and sanction of EL to pursue the Super-speciality
Course in D.M. (Neurology) deserves to be granted, as the successive
orders of rejection are not consistent, are based on shifting grounds
and therefore do not constitute strong, stable or sustainable reasons
to deny the request. In the first rejection, the respondent authorities
relied primarily on procedural and antecedent grounds such as alleged
non-forwarding of the representation through proper channel, the
petitioner having already availed study leave earlier for pursuing M.D.
(General Medicine), and the absence of prior permission / NOC for
appearing in NEET-SS. However, after this Court directed
reconsideration and re-examination in this Writ Petition, the
Page 18 of 23
respondent authorities issued a second rejection order substantially
pivoting to administrative workload and staffing considerations at
Health Unit, Jalna, describing it as a single-doctor unit with additional
responsibilities including attending the lock-up dispensary at
Aurangabad and catering to a large beneficiary population, and also
relying on generalized statements that leave, including EOL, is not a
vested right and that study leave is ordinarily not intended to be
granted repeatedly. This shift in the stated basis, without reconciling
the earlier grounds with the later grounds and without demonstrating
how the reconsideration was carried out in a fair, consistent and non-
arbitrary manner, reflects non-application of mind and renders the
decision vulnerable on the touchstone of reasonableness.
11. Further, that the grant of NOC and EL is not merely a personal
request but a legitimate service-related entitlement to be considered
fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the applicable Railway Board
policy. The petitioner has already undergone a similar process earlier,
namely selection for higher studies through a NEET-PG and grant of
study leave with the employer’s permission. Having facilitated such
academic progression in the past, the respondent authorities are
expected to maintain consistency and non-arbitrariness in decision-
making. A refusal without cogent reasons or in disregard of the
Page 19 of 23
governing letter dated 06.02.2023 would amount to unequal treatment
and fail the standard of reasonableness expected of a public employer.
12. Furthermore, granting NOC and EL is also justified because the
course in D.M. (Neurology) is a super-speciality qualification that
directly strengthens the organisation’s in-house medical capabilities.
Railways is a large public organisation with significant employee
strength and dependents and neurological conditions are increasingly
common and require specialist care. By enabling the petitioner to
acquire advanced expertise from a premier institute, the organisation
stands to gain a highly skilled super-specialist who can contribute to
better diagnosis, treatment and referral management within the
Railway medical system. Such institutional benefit is a relevant
consideration and denial that ignores organisational advantage is
contrary to sound public administration.
13. Furthermore, refusal of NOC and EL can operate as an
unreasonable restraint on the petitioner’s professional advancement
especially when the petitioner has earned the seat through a
competitive, merit-based process where he secured very good all India
rank. While the employer retains discretion to regulate leave, that
discretion must be exercised to balance administrative needs with
legitimate career development of employees, particularly in technical
Page 20 of 23
and medical services where upskilling is essential. If the petitioner is
willing to comply with reasonable safeguards by undertaking to serve
the Railways for a stipulated period after completion, the respondent
authorities can adequately protect organisational interests. In such
circumstances an outright denial becomes disproportionate when less
restrictive measures are available.
14. Denial will likely increase dependence on outsourced or
contractual medical services, which may be costlier and less
accountable than retaining and developing skilled specialists within
the permanent cadre. When expertise is not available internally the
organisation is compelled to engage contractors, refer cases externally
and incur higher expenditure, all of which can be avoided or reduced
by building internal capacity. Therefore, granting NOC and EL aligns
with long-term financial prudence, continuity of care and better
control over service quality. It also promotes institutional self-reliance
and improves patient outcomes for railway beneficiaries.
15. The decision must conform to constitutional standards under
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India which mandates equality
and non-arbitrariness in State action, grant of EL to eligible employees
for pursuing higher studies has been recognised as a settled principle
in various judicial pronouncements and must be considered fairly and
Page 21 of 23
on relevant grounds. Moreover, the organization’s own prior practice
shows that similarly placed medical officers have been granted long-
term leave to pursue the very same super-specialty course in D.M.
(Neurology) subject to safeguards that adequately protect
administrative interests. In the earlier comparable case relied upon by
the petitioner, the authorities granted leave for one year (16.01.2024
to 15.01.2025) for pursuing D.M. (Neurology) and thereafter granted
further leave subject to conditions such as periodic submission of
progress reports, performance sheets, results, and supporting
documents, and further subject to refund of leave salary in case of
non-completion or failure to furnish completion proof. These
safeguards demonstrate that the respondent authorities can protect
institutional interests while facilitating higher studies and the same
approach can reasonably be extended to the petitioner as well.
16. The petitioner’s request is even less burdensome than the earlier
case, because the petitioner seeks leave without pay. The petitioner’s
absence for higher studies does not impose a recurring salary burden
on the Railways during the leave period, unlike the earlier instance
where leave salary was permitted subject to conditions. In such
circumstances, the authorities cannot adopt an inconsistent approach
by facilitating a comparable request with salary in one case, while
rejecting a request without salary in another, unless a clear and
Page 22 of 23
intelligible distinguishing factor is shown. Therefore, if any temporary
administrative exigency arises on account of the petitioner pursuing
the super-speciality course in D.M. (Neurology) (NEET SS – 2025) at
Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow,
the respondent authorities can meet such requirement by engaging a
suitable medical professional on contract for the interim period, which
would not cause any adverse financial burden. In fact, during the
petitioner’s period of leave, the petitioner would be on loss of pay,
whereas any neurologist engaged on contract would typically be paid a
lower remuneration than the petitioner’s regular pay, thereby making
the arrangement economically beneficial to the respondent authorities.
Such an arrangement is also consistent with the Railway Board’s
policy framework that permits engagement of doctors on contractual
basis to meet short-term shortages and ensure continuity of medical
services.
17. Therefore, refusal to grant EL to the petitioner, particularly in
the absence of any rational and cogent justification, would amount to
discriminatory treatment and violate the constitutional guarantee of
equal treatment. Where the relevant policy framework permits such
leave or contemplates supportive measures for higher studies, a
rejection that is unsupported by rational grounds is liable to be set
aside. The petitioner’s request is time-sensitive, tied to the counselling
Page 23 of 23
and admission schedule and delay would render the merit-based
selection meaningless. On an overall assessment of fairness,
proportionality and public interest, issuance of NOC and grant of EL is
the most reasonable course that serves both the petitioner and the
respondent organisation.
18. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm
opinion that the instant Writ Petition deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed. The three impugned rejection orders dated 30.03.2026,
13.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 are set aside. The respondent authorities
are directed to grant the petitioner the NOC and sanction of EL
forthwith in any event within seven days from the date of this order.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date : 27.04.2026
Note: LR Copy to be marked.
(B/o.) Ndr / GSD
[ad_1]
Source link
