Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Dr. Gayatri G.J. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 8713 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Medical education - The petitioner, a DNB trainee, sought to quash orders cancelling her registration due to her acceptance of a government job while in training - The court found that the petitioner had not violated any norms as she had taken leave with permission and that the DNB training rules did not expressly prohibit employment if it did not hinder training. (Paras 5 , 11 , 17 )
(B) Writ jurisdiction - The court emphasized that relief under Article 226 should not be based on misplaced sympathy and must consider the legal framework and rules governing the situation. (Para 9 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner completed her MBBS and DNB courses and was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon while undergoing DNB training. She was served a show-cause notice for joining government employment without permission, leading to the cancellation of her DNB registration.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not abandoned her DNB training and that the 5th respondent-College had no objection to her government employment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner violated any training norms and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of an express prohibition against employment during DNB training, coupled with the college's consent, warranted reconsideration of the cancellation of the petitioner's registration.
Result: Writ petition disposed of directing reconsideration of the petitioner's application for employment.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is a Medical Postgraduate undergoing her DNB Program at the 5th respondent-College, seeks to quash Exts.P9 and P11 and to direct the 2nd respondent-National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to permit the petitioner to complete the DNB Course which she has been undergoing under the 5th respondent-College.
2. The petitioner completed MBBS Course from the Government Medical College, Kalamassery in 2015. The petitioner also completed her Postgraduate Diploma in Ophthalmology in the year 2011 from Sree Gokulam Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. In the year 2017, the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Kerala Medical Services. The petitioner was ranked at Serial No.125 in the PSC ranklist. While so, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) invited applications for admission to Postgraduate Diploma Courses (DNB). Selection to the DNB Courses is on All India basis. Entrance test for DNB was conducted in September, 2021. The petitioner was selected for DNB (Ophthalmology) Course in February, 2022. The petitioner was to complete the Course by February, 2024. As the petitioner took maternity leave for about five months, her DNB Course stood extended upto August, 2024.
4. In July, 2023, the PSC advised the petitioner for recruitment as Assistant Surgeon as per Ext.P1 advice memo dated 24.07.2023. The petitioner appeared for the counselling and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon under the DMO, Kasaragod as per Ext.P4. The petitioner took casual leave for four days from the 5th respondent-College and reported for joining at Kasaragod on 04.10.023. The petitioner was allotted to Family Healthcare Centre (FHC), Manakkad. On the very same day, the petitioner was relieved from duty enabling the petitioner to continue in the 5th respondent-College for finishing her DNB Program. The petitioner resumed her duty in the 5th respondent-College.
5. The petitioner was served with Ext.P7 show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner accepted a Government job and availed leave without permission and rejoined the DNB training thereafter. Ext.P7 stated that there is no provision to seek employment while undergoing DNB training. The petitioner states that Ext.P7 is unsustainable as the petitioner had taken leave with permission, in order to join the job. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 explanation to Ext.P7 notice. The 2nd respondent, however, rejected the explanation given by the petitioner and cancelled the petitioner's registration for DNB. Ext.P9 stated that an NBEMS trainee is not permitted “to seek and join” any employment while in training. The DNB training is a full time residency program and taking up Government job is not permitted.
6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation requesting to reconsider the matter. The request was rejected as per Ext.P11 order. The petitioner states that she has not violated any norms or principles of residency program. She had not deserted the course nor was on long leave. The petitioner did not work even for a day in the Government service. The employment of the petitioner is only notional. Therefore, Exts.P9 and P11 are liable to be quashed.
7. The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent submitted that DNB training is a full time residency program wherein the trainee and the institute are in an employee-employer relation for which the trainee is paid a stipend by the institution for the services offered. The 2nd respondent-NBEMS has no rule that allows a trainee to take up employment while undergoing DNB training.
8. The petitioner informed the National Board that she has got a posting at Kasaragod District through the PSC. The National Board sought clarification from the petitioner. The petitioner sent Ext.R2(c) reply. The petitioner has abandoned the course midway to take up Government employment wi
The court held that a trainee's employment during DNB training is permissible if it does not hinder training and is supported by the institution's consent.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and directed NBE to grant appropriate extension in accordance with the Leave Rules for DNB/FNB Trai....
The interpretation of the National Board of Examinations regarding the determination of eligibility and conduct of examinations is final and binding. Any relief granted must be in accordance with the....
Eligibility for examinations must adhere strictly to prescribed rules, and deviation based on sympathy undermines academic standards.
The court ruled that the study period of petitioners pursuing DNB courses should be recognized as continuation of service for notional benefits, emphasizing equal treatment for government servants.
Maternity leave cannot be counted against leave limits for trainees, and courts can intervene in exceptional health circumstances to allow leave extensions beyond standard rules.
Temporary relocation due to the pandemic was valid under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the excess relocation period should be considered as part of the DNB course tenure for certificate purp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
