Telangana High Court
Dr. Kakulavaram Sharmila Reddy vs The Union Of India on 27 October, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 30306 OF 2025
O R D E R:
Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of permission for sponsorship to prosecute Post Graduate Course in Medicine for the year 2025 on the ground that she does not have three years of field service, while Rule 50 (5) of the Service Rules prescribe five years of regular service.
2. It is stated, petitioner is working as Senior Medical Officer (Deputy Commandant) in Central Reserve Police Force and was posted in Core Special Operating Zone (SOZ), Bijapur District, Chhattisgarh State. She holds MBBS qualification and was selected as Medical Officer (Assistant Commandant) and joined service on 28.07.2018 and was posted to Composite Hospital, Hyderabad where she worked till 29.08.2022. While so, petitioner is stated to have applied for Post Graduate Entrance Examination, 2025 on 31.10.2024 through proper channel and the same was forwarded to the 4th Respondent on 02.11.2024.
2.1. According to petitioner, there is no specific requirement of making an Application through proper channel for Post Graduation Entrance Examination which is conducted 2 by National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBE). She appeared for the examination and secured 300 out of 800 marks with NEET PG 2025 Rank of 103214. Therefore, she requested the Respondents concerned to give her Sponsorship Certificate for admission into one of the six courses to which she is eligible, but her Application was not considered by the 3rd Respondent, which was communicated by order dated 30.09.2025.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Satyam Reddy appearing on behalf of Sri Sarasani Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner contends that guidelines for Sponsorship for PG Medical Courses of the year 2012 do not govern the criteria for eligibility. Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent for recruitment to the post of Medical Officers in 2016 at para 9 clearly states as follows:
" Provision for PG Course:
An Officer can apply for PG Entrance Examination on completion of 5 years regular service.
3.1. It is also contended that petitioner completed five years of regular service in 2023 itself, therefore respondents cannot refuse the Sponsorship Certificate for PG Admission; out of 210 vacancies for Priority No.III in DGAFMS Institutes, only 3 25 candidates including petitioner qualified in the written examination. According to learned Senior Counsel, counselling is likely to take place within a week and if Sponsorship Certificate is not given, candidature of petitioner would not be considered.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel draws attention of this Court to the order dated 20.03.2019 of the Gauhati High Court in Mrs.Sunita Mech Vs. The Union of India (WP (Civil) No. 1923 of 2019) wherein at para 11 it was held that policy guidelines dated 29.02.2012 shall not override CCS Leave Rules, 1972 and therefore, directed the authorities to grant Sponsorship Certificate, relying upon Rule 50 (5) of CCS Leave Rules, 1972, which reads as follows:
" Rule 50 (5)
(i) Who has satisfactorily completed the period of probation and has rendered not less than 5 years regular/continuous service including the period of probation
(ii) who is not due to reach the age of superannuation from the Government Service within 3 years from the date on which he is expected to return to the duty after expiry of leave; and
(iii) who executes a bond to serve the Government for a period of 3 years after the expiry of leave". 4 3.3. It is contended that petitioner applied on 31.10.2024 long before the last date of the examination which held on 03.08.2025, and made another Application on 26.05.2025 which was also much before the last date of examination held on 03.08.2025. It is also contended that the Policy Guidelines of 2012 state that permission for appearing in written qualifying examination for PG Courses/ Super Specialty Course or any other course shall be given by the 3rd Respondent; his Application was received by the Board and was allowed to take examination, now what is required is Sponsorship Certificate from the 2nd Respondent and not permission to appear for the PG Entrance Examination, as stated in the impugned communication dated 30.09.2025; therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set aside. 3.4. According to learned Senior Counsel, in the previous academic years, the 3rd Respondent has granted permission in similar situation to several others, therefore, respondents be directed to permit petitioner to pursue Post Graduate Course in Medicine in Priority No.III in DGAFMS Institutes for the academic year 2025 by granting Sponsorship Certificate 5
4. Smt. N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government submits that request of petitioner was rejected due to non-fulfilling of mandatory eligibility criteria i.e. three years of Field Service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner submitted Application dated 26.05.2025 to DG CRPF which was forwarded to DIG, Range Bhubanewar (Odisha) by the Commandant-168 BN on the even date, which was further forwarded to the Inspector General of Police, Odisha Sector, CRPF by the DIG, Range Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 17.06.2025; further to SDG, Central Zone, CRPF, Kolkata by IG Odisha vide letter dated 06.08.2025.
4.1. It is further submitted that DIG(Pers) Dte vide signal dated 14.08.2025 informed that after examining the case of petitioner with guidelines issued by MHA vide letter dated 29.02.2012, since she has not completed three years of mandatory field service in Unit as on 01.05.2025 (cut-off date for reckoning eligibility of total service and filed service) and NEET PG exam has already been conducted on 03.08.2025, therefore Ex-post facto permission is not admissible. The DIG(Pers) Die has also intimated that as per para-09 of Standing Order No.05/2022, attachment /temporary duty for more than 90 days in one spell may be counted towards tenure 6 of that particular place where he/she is attached. Since petitioner has not performed attachment duty for more than 90 days in one spell (except temporary duty period at Radha Soami Satsnag Beas, Chhatarpur, New Delhi), the said period cannot be counted as field service. Further, temporary duty period at Radha Soami Satsnag Beas, Chhatarpur, New Delhi can also not be treated as field service as she was not attached with duty Bn at New Delhi. In view of above, request for grant of permission to appear in PG Entrance Exam-2025 of above Petitioner could not be acceded to.
4.2. DIG(Pers)Dte vide impugned signal intimated that proposal for granting permission to petitioner along with other Medical Officer, was forwarded to MHA which desired that Competent Authority should take action as per MHА policy guidelines dated 29.02.2012. As per para-2(A) (k) of the aforesaid policy guidelines "Ex post-facto permission will not be granted at any level by the competent authority". In view of the above, Ex post-facto permission for appearing NEET PG Entrance Exam 2025 to petitioner and other medical officer have not been considered by ADG(Med), CAPFs. The guidelines /eligibility criteria for applying NEET PG Entrance Examination by Medical Officers are given at para-g below para-2(A) of MHA 7 letter, according to which out of pre-requisition of minimum 05 years of service, GDMOS should have put in at least 03 years of service in the field unit and should have successfully completed his/her probation. Though petitioner has completed 05 years of minimum service and successfully completed probation, he has not completed 03 years of service in field unit as intimated by DIG(Pers) Dte signal dated 14.08.2025 which is one of the eligibility criteria fixed by MHA.
5. The crisp case of petitioner is that she joined the service in 2018 and completed five years of service by 2023, whereas the contention of respondent authorities is that through petitioner completed five years of minimum service and successfully completed probation, the criteria that she should complete three years of field service is not complied with.
6. Here, it is to be seen the policy guidelines for pursuing PG course as laid down by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 29.02.2012 states at para 2(A)(g)(i)&(ii) as follows:
"2(A): Post Graduate Studies:
(g) The basic eligibility criteria for applying for study leave for pursuing PG/super speciality courses shall be as under:
(i) According to Rule 50(5) of CCS Leave Rules, a Government Servant can be granted study leave having minimum five years of service. Therefore, only those Medical Officers/ Dentists, who have 8 completed 5 years of service in the CAPF concerned will be eligible for study leave for pursuing PG courses.
(ii) out of pre-requisition of minimum 05 years of service, the GDMOs should have put in at least 03 years of service in the field unit and should have successfully completed his/ her probation."
7. A perusal of the above policy guidelines shows that petitioner has to put in at least three years of service in the field unit out of five years of service. However, a perusal of Rule 50(5) of the CCS Leave Rules which was extracted supra shows that study leave can be granted to a government servant who has satisfactory completed his period of probation and has rendered not less than five years regular continuous service, including the period of probation under the government. The Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the order referred to supra, held that as the CCS Leave Rules do not require a government servant to put in three years of service in a field unit, the execution instructions requiring the same is not in consonance with the CCS Leave Rules, 1972. In K. Kuppuswamy v. State of T.N. (1998) 8 SCC 469, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that statutory Rules under Article 309 cannot be overruled by an Executive Order or Executive practice. In view of the same, the Gauhati High Court held that policy guidelines dated 29.02.2012 requiring a government servant to put in at least three years of service in the field unit out of the total five years of government 9 service is not sustainable as the same cannot override the CCS Leave Rules, 1972.
8. This Court is in complete agreement with the rationale in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, therefore, the impugned Signal is liable to be set aside.
9. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed, setting aside the Signal dated 30.09.2025. Respondents are consequently, directed to permit petitioner to pursue Post Graduate Course in Medicine in Priority No. III in DGAFMS Institutions for the academic year 2025 by granting Sponsorship Certificate. No costs.
10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- ----------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 27th October, 2025 ksld