Non-issuance of NOC and leave to pursue a higher specialization despite qualifying for the NEET exam- The significance of fair, non-arbitrary administrative decisions.

~ lawumbrella

After completing his MBBS from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, Dr. Anupam Sharma joined as a General Duty Officer (GDO) in the Health Department of Himachal Pradesh. He served at various health centers before being selected for a post-graduate course in general surgery at the same college. After completing his postgraduate studies, Dr. Sharma was appointed as a Senior Resident in the Department of General Surgery at Dr. Y.S. Parmar Government Medical College in Nahan.

Dr. Sharma’s aspirations to further his expertise led him to appear for the NEET Super Specialty Examination (M.CH & DNB SS)-2023, which he cleared successfully. To pursue this higher specialization, he required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Extra-Ordinary Leave from his current position, as per the protocols set by the Health Department. However, Dr. Sharma faced a roadblock despite applying for the NOC and the leave. The Health Department did not address his request, leading to a significant professional setback. This non-action by the authorities prompted Dr. Sharma to approach the Himachal Pradesh High Court to seek legal redress.

Chronological Developments:

  • 2010-2015: Dr. Sharma completes MBBS from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla.
  • Feb 10, 2016 – May 4, 2018: Serves as a GDO in Primary Health Centre, Banikhet.
  • May 7, 2018 – Sep 8, 2021: Undergoes Post Graduation in General Surgery.
  • Sep 9, 2021 – Mar 19, 2022: Posted as GDO (Specialist) in Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala.
  • Mar 14, 2022 onwards: Serves as Senior Resident at Dr. Y.S. Parmar Government Medical College, Nahan.
  • Sep 29, 2023: Qualifies NEET Super Specialty Examination.
  • Nov 6, 2023: Informed verbally about the denial of NOC.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

  • The non-issuance of NOC and leave, despite qualifying for the NEET exam, was arbitrary and not in the spirit of law.
  • He argued that the State’s policies on PG/Super Specialty and Resident Doctors should be interpreted harmoniously, exempting him from the mandatory one-year field posting requirement.
  • Sharma highlighted a discriminatory approach by the State, citing instances of NOCs granted to other GDOs in similar situations.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning:

  • Interpretation of Policy Provisions: The court analyzed the relevant policies governing the grant of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for pursuing higher education. The key policies under scrutiny were the PG/Super Specialty Policy dated 27.02.2019 and the Resident Doctors Policy dated 24.12.2021. The court’s task was to interpret these policies, particularly clauses related to the requirement of field posting after post-graduation and the conditions for granting NOCs for further studies.
  • Harmonious Reading of Policies: The court emphasized the need to read these policies harmoniously. It noted that the requirement for one year of field posting was not to be insisted upon for those candidates who, after completing post-graduation, were working as Senior Residents in newly opened medical colleges. This interpretation was crucial in determining the petitioner’s eligibility for the NOC.
  • Analysis of Individual Case: The court closely examined the petitioner’s specific circumstances. Dr. Sharma, after completing his post-graduation, was serving as a Senior Resident. According to the court’s interpretation of the policies, this position exempted him from the mandatory one-year field posting, thus qualifying him for the NOC to pursue super specialty courses.
  • Principle of Non-Discrimination: The court applied the principle of equality, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, to argue against discriminatory practices. It noted that similar NOCs were granted to other doctors in comparable positions, and denying Dr. Sharma the same opportunity constituted discrimination.
  • Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court observed that the non-issuance of NOC by the state authorities was arbitrary and violated Dr. Sharma’s fundamental rights. It emphasized the importance of fair and non-arbitrary administrative actions, especially when they affect an individual’s professional and educational prospects.
  • Public Interest and State Obligations: The court also considered the broader implications of its decision, balancing the individual’s rights against the state’s interest in maintaining adequate medical personnel. It recognized that granting NOC to Dr. Sharma would not significantly affect the state’s healthcare system, especially given the long-term benefits of having more highly specialized doctors.
  • Conclusion and Directives: The court concluded that the denial of NOC and Extra-Ordinary Leave to Dr. Sharma was unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the policies and principles of law. It directed the state to issue the necessary NOC and accommodate the petitioner’s educational aspirations, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and non-discrimination in administrative decision-making..

Conclusion and Judgment:

  • The Court allowed the petition, directing the State to issue the NOC and grant Extra Ordinary Leave to Dr. Sharma.
  • The State’s denial was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  • The Court clarified that the policies should be harmoniously construed, ensuring fair and non-discriminatory treatment to all medical professionals seeking higher education.

“The action of Respondents in denying/withholding/not issuing “the Final No Objection Certificate”, and in not granting “Extra-Ordinary Leave” as in communication dated 21.10.2023, Annexure P-3, for seeking admission to Super-Specialty Course (MCH, DNB) in pursuance of the First Round of Counseling with effect from 18.11.2023 to 24.11.2023 and thereafter (if required) being arbitrary and illegal, is quashed and set aside.”

Ranjan Sharma, J.,CWP No. 8831 of 2023

Impact: This decision underscored the importance of equitable interpretation of government policies in education, especially in specialized fields like medicine. It reinforced the principle that administrative decisions should not arbitrarily hinder individuals’ professional growth and opportunities.

—————————————————
Deven Khanna,
Advocate,
Direct (M): + 91 – 7018469792  
Office: +91 – 0177 – 2674760

Unknown's avatar

Published by lawumbrella

Advocate Deven Khanna, an alumnus of the esteemed National Law School, is currently engaged in legal practice at the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court of India. His practice primarily focuses on areas such as Civil liberties, Constitutional law, Writs, Labour and Service matters, Public Interest Litigations, and Bail matters. His academic contributions include articles in national journals, judging moot courts, and presentations at various legal conferences. He is committed to advancing legal education. For inquiries, he can be contacted at khannadeven@gmail.com or on mobile at 7018469792.

Leave a comment