Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avijit Mishra
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. S. K. Parhi, A.S.C., Mr. Rajani Chandra Mohanty, Advocate

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Factual Background of the Case * The Petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon, completed his MBBS in 2014 and Post-Graduation in General Surgery in 2022, signing a bond under the Government of Odisha, Health & Family Welfare Department Resolution No.ME-II-IXM/88/2008-3418 dated 03.02.2017 (the "2017 Resolution") to serve for two years in Odisha (!) (!) . * While serving his bond, the Petitioner was implicated in a vigilance case alleging bribery for conducting surgeries, leading to his arrest on 10.02.2024 and subsequent suspension from service w.e.f 10.02.2024 (!) (!) . * The Petitioner was released on bail on 23.02.2024 and subsequently selected for a fellowship course in "Hepato Pancratico Biliary Surgery" at Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai (!) (!) . * Upon selection, the Petitioner sought an NOC to join the fellowship but faced rejection via Order No.34240/H dated 16.12.2024 (!) (!) .

Contentions of the Petitioner * The Petitioner argued that the 2017 Resolution, which governs his bond, does not contain any restrictions regarding higher studies during the pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings (!) . * It was contended that Clause 1(e) of the 2017 Resolution allows candidates to pursue higher studies immediately after completion of their course, with the bond ceasing to operate until their return, without requiring NMC approval for the specific course (!) . * The Petitioner asserted that a government servant under suspension is entitled to subsistence allowance and that pendency of proceedings cannot bar access to higher studies, citing the Bombay High Court judgment in Kailash Kashinathrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (!) . * The Petitioner claimed that the rejection order was baseless as the 2017 Resolution he signed did not include criteria for NMC approval or restrictions on OMHS cadre members (!) (!) .

Contentions of the Opposite Parties * The Opposite Parties argued that the Petitioner is under suspension due to a pending vigilance case and thus should not be granted an NOC (!) . * They contended that current government policy requires NOC to be issued only for fellowship courses approved by the National Medical Commission (NMC), and the specific course selected by the Petitioner is not on the approved list (!) . * It was further submitted that since the Petitioner belongs to the OMHS cadre and is under suspension, no NOC can be issued in his favor (!) .

Analysis of the Court * The Court examined the 2017 Resolution and found no stipulation barring OMHS cadre doctors or restricting NOC issuance to only NMC-approved courses; the Petitioner is governed strictly by the resolution he signed (!) (!) . * The Court held that subsequent resolutions from 2021 and 2024 adding NMC approval criteria are not applicable as the Petitioner signed the bond under the 2017 Resolution, citing the principle that parties are bound by the specific agreement they signed (!) . * Regarding the suspension, the Court noted that suspension is an interim measure pending departmental proceedings and does not equate to termination of service; furthermore, no departmental proceedings had been initiated despite over a year passing (!) (!) . * The Court emphasized that the right to education is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied solely due to the pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings against an employee (!) (!) .

Final Order and Result * The Court quashed the rejection order dated 16.12.2024 as it was unsustainable in law (!) . * The Petitioner was directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 for the issuance of an NOC within two weeks, subject to verification of the selection claim (!) . * The Petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking to appear before the disciplinary committee and the jurisdictional court when necessary, and the NOC was granted subject to the eventual outcome of the pending proceedings (!) . * The Writ Petition was allowed (!) .