Back
Doctor Manish Kamra Granted Right to Pursue Super Speciality Course
In a significant ruling, the has held that the , though not explicitly enshrined as a , cannot be curtailed lightly. The judgment came in a filed by Dr. Manish Kamra, a medical officer with the , who sought permission to pursue a three-year DNB Super Speciality Cardiology course after being allotted a seat under the All India Quota.
A Doctor's Pursuit of Specialisation
Dr. Kamra, who qualified the NEET SS Exam-2025, was allotted a seat in the DNB Super Speciality Cardiology course at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital in West Delhi during the second round of counselling conducted on . He applied for under on . When he received no response, he approached the High Court.
The petitioner had previously availed 36 months of and had executed a requiring him to complete five years of service after returning to duty. He had already served one year and nine months following his return.
Government Opposition and the Question
The GNCTD opposed the petition on multiple grounds. It argued that Dr. Kamra had not obtained prior permission to appear for the NEET-SS examination and that he was ineligible for a second period of . The authorities also pointed to the executed by the doctor, which stipulated a payment of ₹61 lakh in case of violation of the five-year service condition.
, counsel for the respondent, contended that the interest of the Central Government would be adversely affected as Dr. Kamra was serving as a medical officer in the outer North district and releasing him would create a shortage of medical staff.
Court's Reasoning: Balancing Rights and Obligations
Justice Jasmeet Singh, hearing the matter, observed that the petitioner's opportunity to enhance his professional skills through higher education could not be lightly interfered with. The Court noted:
"The petitioner in the present case has got an opportunity to enhance his professional skills by pursuing higher education in the form of a Super Speciality Course. Interdicting the same would be a violation of valuable rights of the petitioner including his , which even though not spelt out as a cannot be curtailed lightly."
The Court rejected the contention that the petitioner had violated the terms, pointing out that the itself quantified the loss at ₹61 lakh for any interruption in service. It held that the government's monetary interest could be adequately secured by requiring the petitioner to furnish an and an for the same amount.
On the issue of prior permission, the Court noted that Dr. Kamra had sought permission in but was denied on the ground of ineligibility for a second . The Court found this reasoning had been addressed and could not be used to deny the current request.
No Evidence of Staff Shortage
The Court also observed that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate any shortage of medical staff, apart from a "." Additionally, the petitioner undertook to return and complete the remaining period after acquiring the super speciality qualification.
Final Order and Implications
The Court directed the respondent to sanction the within two days of the petitioner furnishing an affidavit or to complete the balance period after the course, along with an for ₹61 lakh. Upon issuance of the , the petitioner was ordered to deposit the fees.
Justice Singh clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not be treated as a binding procedure. The petition was allowed in the aforesaid terms.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect an individual's right to professional advancement, even when faced with contractual obligations to the state, provided the state's financial interests are secured.
