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