Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Having secured All India Rank of 4358, in the counselling / seat allocation, the Appellant was allocated seat in Nuclear Medicine at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research ("PGIMER"), Chandigarh under the sponsored category and an offer letter dated 18.12.2025 was issued to the Appellant to join PGIMER, Chandigarh for pursuing his post-graduation in Nuclear Medicine on the sponsored seat category. The Appellant requested Respondent No. 1 - Hospital to issue relieving orders and NOC and to Respondent No. 2 for grant of Study Leave. However, Respondent No. 1 - Hospital vide Office Memorandum dated 19.12.2025 ("Impugned OM") rejected the request for grant of NOC to the Appellant on the ground that in terms of the prevalent practice, the senior doctor in Respondent No. 1 - Hospital has been recommended for grant of Study Leave / NOC for pursuing PG course since only three medical officers are allowed to join PG courses at a given time in terms of Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2012 ("2012 OM") issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. As there were already two Medical Officers pursuing the higher studies, Respondent No. 5 was granted NOC being senior to the Appellant and, consequently, the Appellant was denied the Study Leave as well as NOC by Respondent No. 1 - Hospital.

14. The Appellant has secured the All India Rank of 4358 in the entrance test conducted by the AIIMS, Delhi and also secured a seat for MD in Nuclear Medicine at PGIMER, Chandigarh under the sponsored category. However, Respondent No. 1 - Hospital has refused the grant of Study Leave / NOC to the Appellant only on the ground that at a given time, only three Medical Officers are permitted to pursue higher studies and as two Medical Officers were already pursuing higher studies, there was vacancy for only one Medical Officer, who can be granted Study Leave / NOC for pursuing PG course. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 - Hospital had to choose between the Appellant and Respondent No. 5.

15. The Impugned OM has made a decision on the basis of the prevailing practice of Respondent No. 1 - Hospital to select senior doctor for grant of Study Leave / NOC. Accordingly, the Appellant was denied the grant of Study Leave / NOC.

16. The grievance of the Appellant is that the criterion of seniority cannot be the sole ground on which the grant of Study Leave / NOC be decided. It was submitted that in addition to the seniority, the merits and public interest ought to have been taken into consideration by Respondent No. 1 - Hospital for selecting the Appellant instead of Respondent No. 5, especially when 2012 OM and the SOP do not provide the criteria to be followed in case of two candidates seeking the Study Leave / NOC and only one is to be allowed.

22. Upon enquiry by the Court regarding the prevalent practice as mentioned in the impugned OM, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 - Hospital submitted that even previously, the selection was based on the criteria of seniority and, in fact, Respondent No. 5 was denied the Study Leave / NOC in previous year even though she had qualified for higher studies, on the ground of seniority and a preference was given to the medical officer senior to Respondent No. 5. Therefore, it was just and fair that Respondent No. 5 be given preference over the Appellant on the ground of seniority as she was earlier denied the Study Leave / NOC on the very same ground.