In a writ petition filed before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction for granting special leave of 47 days to the petitioner and corresponding extension of her training period to enable the completion of her super specialty course, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to decide a fresh application by the petitioner within two weeks considering the peculiar circumstances of the case.
The petitioner completed her MBBS and MD in General Medicine. She got selected in the NEET Super Speciality Examination of 2022 and was allotted the DrNB Course in Nephrology with Aster Medicity (Medical Institution), where she joined on 14-12-2022. While undergoing her Super Speciality Course, she availed maternity leave from 23-05-2023 to 22-11-2023, along with a few other days of leave, totalling 207 days. During this time, the petitioner contracted Stage IV High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma, an aggressive form of blood cancer.
The petitioner’s treatment began on 28-08-2025 and was expected to be completed by January 2026. The petitioner mentioned that she would be able to resume her training from 01-03-2026, but by then, her total leaves would exceed the permitted number of leaves by 37 days.
While declining her leave application, the petitioner was informed that the total leave availed by her would be 402 days and that, as per Clause 7(c) of the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees, if the total leave availed during the training programmes is more than a year, it would lead to the cancellation of her candidature.
In all the communications, the petitioner was directed to resubmit the leave application in light of the Comprehensive Leave Rule. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The Court stated that DrNB was a speciality course requiring the candidate to undergo continuous training without a long break, but found it necessary to mention that when the petitioner joined, the relevant rules stipulated that under normal circumstances, leave of one year should be carried forward to the next year, but in exceptional cases such as prolonged illness, the leave across DrNB training may be clubbed with the prior approval of NBEMS.
Upon comparison of the rules in force at the time of the petitioner’s joining and the present rules, the Court found that the previous rules considered exceptional situations, whereas the present rules do not have any such provision. It was said that the petitioner’s reason for seeking leave beyond the period of one year was not attributable to her wilful conduct, but to something which was beyond her control.
Taking into consideration the petitioners’ approved maternity leave, the Court said that the right of a woman to avail maternity leave cannot be denied and that this period must also include the time to recuperate. Being in agreement with the Delhi High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Ravina Yadav & Ors. (MANU/DE/4823/2024), the Court stated that maternity leave is a right whereas, other leaves are discretionary. It was held that the maternity leave availed by a trainee like the petitioner cannot be clubbed with other regular leaves that can be availed by such a trainee.
Treating the present situation as an extraordinary one, the Court stated that the restriction in the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees 2024 ought not be applied pedantically to the petitioner. The Court stated that a consideration by NBEMS was essential in the present matter since the petitioner’s maternity leave could not be counted for calculating the total leave to apply the principle of ‘no leave beyond one year’.
It was stated that the petitioner must be permitted to submit a fresh application to NBEMS within a specified time frame. The Court directed that if a fresh application for leave is submitted through the institution within ten days from the date of receipt of this judgment, NBEMS must consider the same and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.
The Court stated that the grant of leave by NBEMS shall specifically be observed as being on account of extraordinary circumstances in the present case. While disposing of the petition, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be terminated from the programme in the meantime.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. George Jacob (Jose), Mr. Roshan Jacob Mundackal
For Respondents – Mr. T. Sanjay (SC, NBEMS), Mr. O.M. Shalina (Deputy Solicitor General of India), Mr. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Mr. Karthik S. Acharya, Mr. K. John Mathai, Mr. Joson Manavalan, Mr. Kuryan Thomas, Mr. Paulose C. Abraham, Mr. Raja Kannan, Mr. Pranoy Harilal
