Orissa High Court
Dr. Supreet Saurav vs State Of Odisha And Others . Opp. Parties on 10 September, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K.Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.736 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
Dr. Supreet Saurav . Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Avijit Mishra
-versus-
State of Odisha and others . Opp. Parties
Represented By Adv.
Mr. S. K. Parhi, A.S.C.
Mr. Rajani Chandra Mohanty, Advocate
(for OP No.4),
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Date of hearing : 10.07.2025 | Date of Judgment : 10.09.2025
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order No.34240/H dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.1, under Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition, along with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to issue a NOC in favour of the Petitioner so as to enable him to pursue his fellowship programme in „Hepato Pancratico Billiary Surgery‟ at the Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre Mumbai.
Page 1 of 21 FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. A comprehensive overview of the background facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition is as follows; after completing his MBBS course from Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar in the year 2014, the Petitioner got selected by the OPSC and joined as an Assistant surgeon/Medical Officer under Opposite Party No.3 and was posted at CHC Remuna in the year 2018. Thereafter, the Petitioner was got selected for post-graduation in „General Surgery‟, which he completed in the year 2022 from VIMSAR, Burla. When the Petitioner took admission for the post-graduation course he executed a post-PG bond as per the Government of Odisha, Health & Family Welfare Department Resolution No.ME-IIIXM/88/2008- 3418 dated 03.02.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "2017 Resolution"), under Annexure-1 to the present Writ Petition. Pursuant to such bond, the Petitioner has to work for at least two years in different medical institutions in the state of Odisha. After completion of his PG, the Petitioner, in pursuance of the bond signed, was first posted as a Senior Resident at VIMSAR, Burla and thereafter as a Senior Resident at FMMCH, Balasore and was posted at DHH, Jharsuguda. While working as such, the Petitioner was relieved by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Jharsuguda vide order No.931 dated 09.02.2024, under Annexure-2.
Page 2 of 21
3. While continuing as such, a F.I.R was lodged against the Petitioner with the allegation that he was taking bribe to conduct an operation at the DHH, Jharsuguda. Following such allegations, the Petitioner was relieved from DHH, Jharsuguda in the afternoon of 09.02.2024 and later suspended from service w.e.f the date of his arrest, i.e. 10.02.2024, vide office order No.5461 dated 01.03.2024, passed by the Opposite Party No.1-Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare Department, Odisha, under Annexure-3 to the present Writ Petition. Later on, the Petitioner was released on bail on 23.02.2024. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner got selected by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik for a fellowship course in "Hepato Pancratico Billiary Surgery" and was allotted Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai. Upon being selected, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.04.2024, before the Additional secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, to issue NOC in favour of the Petitioner enabling him to join the fellowship. Later on, the Petitioner had also filed a W.P.(C) No.27875 before this Court with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to issue the NOC in favour of the Petitioner. Finally, this Court, vide orders dated 18.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, directed the Opposite Parties to verify the claim of the Petitioner and issue NOC in his favour if his claims are found to be true. Following such direction, the Opposite Party No.1, vide its order dated 16.12.2024 has rejected the representation of the Petitioner Page 3 of 21 for issuing NOC in his favour. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court praying for the relief as mentioned hereinabove. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
4. Heard Mr.Avijit Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that while the Petitioner was continuing as a Medical Officer in the OMHS Cadre, he was selected to do his Post Graduation in „General Surgery‟ as an in- service candidate in the year 2019 from VIMSAR, Burla, which he completed in the year 2022. He further contended that after the Petitioner was selected for a fellowship course in "Hepato Pancratico Billiary Surgery" at Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, as evidenced from the allotment letter under Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition, the Petitioner had submitted his representation dated 07.04.2024, under Annexure-5, before the Additional Secretary, H&FW Department to issue an NOC in his favour. However, no action was taken upon the said representation. Later on, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.27875 of 2024, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, produced as Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition, had directed the Opposite Parties to issue NOC in favour of the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite such order of this Court, the Opposite Party No.1 rejected the representation of the Page 4 of 21 Petitioner, vide order dated 16.12.2024, on the ground that the Petitioner has been placed under suspension while continuing his post-PG bond service.
5. With regard to the allegations of bribery against the Petitioner, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to a copy of the order No.931 dated 09.02.2024 under Annexure-2, and submitted that while the Petitioner was serving his bond period at DHH, Jharsuguda he was relived on 09.02.2024 to join before the Dean & Principal, VIMSAR, Burla. Unbeknownst, to the Petitioner two persons have tried to frame him by alleging that he had asked for a sum of money from the said persons to conduct their surgery at DHH, Jharsuguda. It is the contention of the learned counsel that following such baseless allegations the Vigilance authorities have arrested the Petitioner on 10.02.2024.
6. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that a government servant who has been suspended due to a vigilance case should be reinstated within six months from the date of initiation of the criminal case in the event the investigation in the matter is not completed by that time. In fact, the onus is on the Vigilance Department to communicate the reasons for non-completion of the investigation and to also indicate the time period within which the investigation is expected to be completed, and if the investigation is not completed within that period then the Government Servant is to be reinstated in service after reviewing Page 5 of 21 such suspension order. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Petitioner was initially arrested on 10.02.2024 and in the meantime more than one year has elapsed, however, neither the investigation has been completed, nor have the reasons for the same been communicated to the government. Moreover, no approval has also been obtained from the State Government to continue the suspension of the Petitioner beyond the six months period.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner went to argue that even though the Petitioner was in regular service under OMHS Cadre, he was directed to sign a bond as per the Government of Odisha, Health & Family Welfare Department Resolution No.ME-II-IXM/88/2008- 3418 dated 03.02.2017, a copy whereof has been provided under Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. As per the bond condition the Petitioner is compulsorily required to work for two years in health institutions of the State. Referring to Clause 1(e) of the 2017 Resolution, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that when a doctor who has signed the bond and has completed his Post Graduation, in the event the candidate gets an opportunity for higher studies within the two years of bond period, then the bond shall cease to operate and come into effect only after the doctor has returned from his higher studies. Additionally, since the Petitioner has signed the bond as per the 2017 resolution, his two years of bond service shall be governed by the 2017 resolution alone. learned Counsel for the Page 6 of 21 Petitioner further contended that despite the Petitioner belonging to the OMHS Cadre, his services are governed as per the bond which has been signed in terms of the 2017 Resolution which does not contain any restrictions with regard to the Petitioner attending higher studies during pendency of disciplinary proceeding. Furthermore, the said resolution does allow the Petitioner to go for higher studies in between the two year bond service which the Petitioner would complete after returning from his higher studies.
8. Next, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that following the initiation of the vigilance case against the Petitioner, he was placed under suspension w.e.f 10.02.2024 by the Opposite Party No.1 vide its order dated 01.03.2024, under Annexure-3, pending the initiation of departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. He further mentioned that as per the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2024 the Petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule-90 of the Odisha Service Code. However, the same has not yet been extended in favour of the Petitioner.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated before this Court that the Pendency of any criminal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings cannot serve as a bar for any in-service candidate to go for higher studies. To support his contentions, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the Bombay High Court‟s judgement dated 26.03.2024 in Kailash Kashinathrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Page 7 of 21 bearing W.P.(C) No.4415 of 2024. Thereafter, referring to the rejection order dated 16.12.2024, under Annexure-8, the learned Counsel submitted that the said order enumerates that an NOC will be given to a candidate to pursue only those fellowship courses which are recognized by the NMC. However, the present Petitioner has signed the bond as per the 2017 resolution which does not contain any such criteria. As such, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement dated 26.06.2025 of this Court in Dr.Smruti Snigdha Sahoo v. State of Odisha and Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.10839 of 2025.
10. In such view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has a right to go for higher studies and that the Opposite Parties cannot restrain the Petitioner from exercising such right. It was also contended that the State Government clearly allows in- service doctors to go outside the State for various programs by taking study leave and in such instances the service of such doctors was also protected. However, in the instant case, the Petitioner‟s case has been handled lackadaisically, especially since there is no such policy as has been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the order dated 16.12.2024. As such, the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.12.2024 is liable to be quashed and that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to issue NOC in favour of Page 8 of 21 the Petitioner so as to enable him to immediately enroll in the fellowship program to which he has been selected.
CONTENTIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
11. Heard Mr.S.K.Parhi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties and Mr.R.C.Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4. Perused the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1.
12. Learned ASC, at the outset contended that while the Petitioner was undergoing his service as per his post-PG bond condition at DHH Jharsuguda, he was placed under suspension vide Department Order No.5461 dated 01.03.2024, under Annexure-A/1 to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1, owing to the fact that a Rourkela Vigilance P.S Case No.03, dated 09.02.2024, was registered against the Petitioner for making an illegitimate demand of money to the tune of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant to conduct his and a co-villager‟s „Hydrocele Surgery‟. He further contended that the GA (Vigilance) Department, vide its letter No.48 dated 27.01.2025, under Annexure-B/1 to the Counter, has intimated that the case is pending awaiting sanction for prosecution from GA&PG Department and that the Petitioner ought to cooperate with the investigation of the case.
Page 9 of 21
13. Additionally, referring to the copy of NMC approved courses under Annexure-C/1 to the Counter by the Opposite Party No.1 and the proceeding of the Committee meeting held on 02.09.2022 to grant NOC to Medical Officers, under Annexure-D/1 to the Counter, the learned ASC submitted that as per the current policy of the Government, an NOC will be issued to Medical Officers only for those fellowship courses approved by the NMC and as per the D.M.E.T, Odisha the fellowship course to which the Petitioner claims NOC for being admitted into, i.e. "Hepato Pancratico Billiary Surgery", is not on the list of fellowship courses approved by the NMC. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be issued with an NOC for admission into the said course. Also, since the Petitioner belongs to the OMHS cadre and he is under suspension, no NOC can be issued in his favour. Moreover, the learned ASC submitted that before applying for the said fellowship course, the Petitioner has not taken the prior permission of the Government.
14. As such, the learned ASC contended that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer of the Petitioner to issue NOC in his favour to pursue his fellowship programme in Mumbai is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT Page 10 of 21
15. Heard Mr.Avijit Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.S.K.Parhi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties and Mr.R.C.Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4. Perused the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1.
16. The Petitioner, a doctor, has been selected for the fellowship programme in "Hepato Pancratico Biliary Surgery" at Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai. At the time of his selection, the Petitioner was serving the mandatory two-year post-PG bond service. During this period, he was implicated in a vigilance case, bearing Rourkela Vigilance P.S. Case No.03 dated 09.02.2024, and was placed under suspension w.e.f 10.02.2024 by order dated 01.03.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.1. Consequently, he applied to the authorities for issuance of an NOC to enable him to pursue his higher studies. When the Petitioner‟s representation was left in limbo, he approached a Coordinate Bench of this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 27875 of 2024. The writ petition was disposed of by orders dated 18.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench directed the Opposite Parties to issue an NOC in favour of the Petitioner if the veracity of his claim regarding admission to the fellowship course was found to be true. Pursuant to such direction, Opposite Party No. 1 issued an order dated 16.12.2024 rejecting the Page 11 of 21 Petitioner‟s request for an NOC to pursue the fellowship course for which he had been selected. The above sequence of events is not in controversy.
17. On perusal of the order of rejection dated 16.12.2024, under Annexure-8, specifically paragraph-5 of the said order, it can be seen that the Petitioner has been denied NOC on three distinct grounds, viz, firstly, the fellowship course which he has been selected for is not included in the list of courses approved by the NMC. Secondly, the Petitioner belongs to the OMHS Cadre. Thirdly, the Petitioner is under suspension. As such, this Court is of the view that in order to fairly adjudicate the matter at hand and to test the veracity of the prayer of the Petitioner made herein, this court is required to test the probity of the order of rejection dated 16.12.2024, under Annexure-8 to the present Writ Petition and to test the validity of grounds taken for rejection by the Opposite Parties against the touchstone of Constitutional principles.
18. In the instant case, when the Petitioner got selected for pursuing his post-graduation in „General Surgery‟ at VIMSAR, Burla, he signed a bond, for serving for two years after completion of his PG, as per „Government of Odisha Health & Family Welfare Department Resolution No.ME-IIIXM/88/2008-3418‟ dated 03.02.2017, i.e. the „2017 Resolution‟. The said fact has not been disputed by the Opposite Parties. On perusal of the 2017 Resolution, a copy whereof has been provided at Annexure-1, nowhere has it been mentioned that the candidates belonging Page 12 of 21 to the OMHS cadre shall be excluded from the operation of the said resolution. Additionally, nowhere does the resolution mention that an NOC shall be provided to the candidates to only pursue higher studies in the courses that have been approved by the NMC. The crucial provision governing the Petitioner, i.e. a doctor who is serving his post-PG bond period and is selected for higher studies, is Clause 1(e). Clause-1(e) of the 2017 Resolution is quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation.
"1. The Bond conditions shall be as follows:
e. In case a candidate gets opportunity for higher study immediately after completion of course, the bond seizes to operate and will come in to force after return from study. They shall submit a declaration in form of affidavit before JMFC as per format enclosed in Appendix-1, to that effect. In such cases the Pass certificate and CLC shall be released. Copy of such affidavit shall be sent to DHS and DMET Odisha."
19. On perusal of the aforementioned Clause-1(e) and the 2017 Resolution as a whole, it can be very well ascertained that there is no stipulation in the provisions of the said resolution which envisages a bar upon an OMHS cadre doctor from obtaining NOC to pursue higher studies. The said Guidelines also do not contain any stipulation which shall restrict a doctor who has signed the bond to only receive NOC to pursue higher studies in courses approved by NOC. Although, the said Page 13 of 21 stipulation was later included in subsequent Resolutions of the State Government in 2021 and 2024. However, in the present case it is absolutely undisputed that the Petitioner has signed the bond based on the 2017 Resolution. As such, the Petitioner shall be governed only by that Resolution which he has signed, i.e. the 2017 Resolution (reference maybe had to paragraph 40 of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 607). In fact, this very Court in its judgement dated 26.06.2025 in Dr. Smruti Snigdha Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.10839 of 2025 , dealt with a somewhat similar proposition wherein the Petitioner in the said case was denied NOC on the ground that the course in which she had been selected is not amongst the list of courses approved by the NMC, and, as per the latest State Government resolution, the said Petitioner could not be given NOC to pursue higher education in the said course even though the Petitioner had singed a bond based on a previous resolution of the State wherein no such stipulation was included. This Court, relying on the dicta in Association of Medical Superspeciality's case (supra) and several other pronouncements, held that the Petitioner is to be governed by the stipulation contained in the resolution based on which she had signed her bond for post-PG service, and, accordingly, the Opposite Parties therein were directed to issue NOC to the said Petitioner to pursue higher Page 14 of 21 education. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, the first and second grounds taken in the impugned order of rejection are found to be untenable in law.
20. With regard to the third ground taken in the impugned rejection order under Annexure-8, i.e. the fact that the Petitioner is presently under suspension, the record reveals that the Petitioner was earlier implicated in Rourkela Vigilance P.S. Case No.03 dated 09.02.2024. Pursuant thereto, he was arrested on 10.02.2024, enlarged on bail on 23.02.2024, and then placed under suspension with effect from 10.02.2024 by order dated 01.03.2024 passed by Opposite Party No.1. Upon perusal of the order of suspension dated 01.03.2024, under Annexure-3, specifically the 2nd paragraph thereof, it can be seen that the Petitioner has been suspended w.e.f 10.02.2024 until "further orders pending initiation of Departmental Proceeding against him". In the meantime one and half years have passed and nothing has been brought on record to show when, if at all, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner. As to the status of the Vigilance case, after almost a year and half of the initiation of the vigilance case, the investigation in the matter has not yet been concluded.
21. Moreover, nothing has been brought on record to indicate as to whether the suspension of the Petitioner has been reviewed periodically. As has been discussed above, the Petitioner has been suspended until Page 15 of 21 further order pending initiation of Departmental Proceedings. This clearly suggests the inference that the suspension of the Petitioner is not in any way indicative of the termination of his service, instead, it is a temporary measure stated to remain in effect until "further orders pending initiation of Departmental Proceeding against him". Apart from that also, It is a settled proposition of law that a suspension is always meant to be an interim measure to aid the disciplinary proceeding and is meant to prevent the officer concerned from taking any advantage of his position or power while the proceeding against him is finalised. On the other hand, if the suspension is turned indefinite then it would turn punitive in nature (reference maybe had to P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 332, specifically paragraph 40; Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, specifically paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof) and it would not be tenable in law given that the guilt of the delinquent officer remains to be established in the disciplinary proceeding. In fact, in P.R.Nayak's Case (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court, in paragraph 45 thereof, referred to the decision in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, reported in (1964) 5 SCR 431 and made the following observation;
"45. Again, in the case of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [(1964) 5 SCR 431], this Court considered the suspension of a government servant on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. It was contended in that case that suspension pending a Page 16 of 21 criminal proceeding could not be said to be a disciplinary matter. That argument was not accepted. It was said that suspension is of two kinds. It is either a punishment or an interim measure pending a departmental enquiry or pending a criminal proceeding. Suspension as a punishment is a disciplinary matter. Suspension pending a departmental enquiry or pending a criminal proceeding was also held to be comprised within the words "disciplinary matters" within the meaning of Article 314. It was then said "Take the case of suspension pending a departmental enquiry. The purpose of such suspension is generally to facilitate a departmental enquiry and to ensure that while such enquiry is going on -- it may relate to serious lapses on the part of a public service -- , he is not in a position to misuse his authority in the same way in which he might have been charged to have done so in the enquiry. In such a case suspension pending a departmental enquiry cannot be but a matter intimately related to disciplinary matters"."
(Emphasis supplied) Be that as it may, it is not the order of suspension of the Petitioner that is under challenge in the present case. It is the order rejecting the grant of NOC to the Petitioner that is under challenge in the instant Writ Petition. As such, this Court has to restrict its adjudication only to the order of rejection of the Petitioner‟s representation for NOC. Upon further scrutiny of the 2017 Resolution under Annexure-1, i.e. the resolution based on which the Petitioner has signed his post-PG service bond, it can be seen that the resolution does not contain any stipulation barring any in-service candidate from pursuing higher education on the ground of suspension form service.
Page 17 of 21
22. Furthermore, it has long been settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts of the Country that the right to education of a citizen is a substantive legal right afforded to that person and it emanates from the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (reference maybe had to Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 1; Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 1; Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., reported in (1993) 1 SCC
645). Additionally, in the aforesaid context, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Miss. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 666, has held that the right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education and observed that;
"9. The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making "right to education" under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality the fundamental rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate.
***
12. "Right to life" is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education Page 18 of 21 flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.
13. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India including the right to freedom of speech and expression and other rights under Article 19 cannot be appreciated and fully enjoyed unless a citizen is educated and is conscious of his individualistic dignity.
14. The "right to education", therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.
***
17. We hold that every citizen has a "right to education" under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. It is thus evident that the right to education, being an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, must be recognized even in respect of an in-service candidate aspiring for higher studies. Although it is true that such right of the in-service candidate can be made subject to the service conditions of the said candidate and the demands of administration, it cannot, however, be curtailed or denied solely on account of the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings against the employee. In the instant case at hand, at this juncture, the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner remains at the investigative stage, and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that departmental proceedings have actually been initiated. Therefore, it can very well be ascertained that both the proceedings are pending. As such, Page 19 of 21 neither the eventual outcome of such proceedings nor the timeframe for their conclusion can be determined at this stage. Nevertheless, the mere pendency of such proceedings alone cannot justify denying the Petitioner the opportunity to pursue higher education, which was the object of his request for an NOC.
24. In view of the aforesaid analysis, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the Order of rejection dated 16.12.2024 under Annexure-8 to the present Writ Petition is wholly unsustainable in law. As such, the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 for issuing an NOC in his favour. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall verify the claim of the Petitioner regarding his selection into the fellowship course of "Hepato Pancratico Biliary Surgery" at Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, and issue an NOC to the Petitioner, within two weeks thereof, allowing him to pursue such higher education, provided there are no other legal impediments to the same. Additionally, issuance of such NOC in favour of the Petitioner shall be subject to the Petitioner furnishing an undertaking in addition to the other requirements to appear before the disciplinary committee conducting the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner as well as before the jurisdictional court where the criminal case is pending, as and when his presence is considered necessary and expedient. It is further Page 20 of 21 clarified that the Petitioner shall undertake such higher studies subject to the eventual decision to be taken in the departmental and criminal proceeding against the Petitioner.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 10th September, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 21 of 21 Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:09:25