A government doctor won a Super-Speciality cardiology seat but his employer sat on his leave application, effectively blocking the course. The Delhi High Court stepped in: the right to pursue higher education, though not a fundamental right, cannot be curtailed lightly, and the government’s concern about its service bond can be secured with an indemnity and an undated cheque, not by denying the doctor his chance to specialise.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to sanction extraordinary leave to a doctor in its service to enable him to pursue a Super-Speciality DNB course in cardiology, observing that the right to pursue higher education, though not spelt out as a fundamental right, cannot be curtailed lightly [Dr Manish Kamra v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the doctor’s writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, after his application for leave, to take up a seat allotted to him through NEET Super-Speciality counselling, went unanswered by his department.
The case
The petitioner, a doctor in the service of the GNCTD, qualified the NEET-SS Examination and, in the second round of counselling, was allotted a seat in the DNB Super-Speciality cardiology course at a super-speciality hospital in West Delhi under the All India Quota. He applied to his department for extraordinary leave of three years under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972; receiving no response, he moved the High Court, as the seat and the course were time-sensitive.
The department opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner had not obtained prior permission to appear in the NEET-SS examination, that he had earlier availed study leave of 36 months and executed a bond to serve for five years after his return, so that taking further leave would breach the bond, and that his absence would adversely affect the government, as he was functioning as a medical officer in an outer district. It also relied on an office memorandum stating that no ex-post-facto permission would be granted.
What the Court held
The Court held that the petitioner had earned an opportunity to enhance his professional skills by pursuing higher education in the form of a Super-Speciality course, and that interdicting it would violate his valuable rights, including his right to pursue higher education, which, even if not expressly a fundamental right, cannot be curtailed lightly. The department’s interest in monetary compensation for any breach of the service bond, the Court observed, could always be secured, and did not justify denying the leave altogether.
The Court noted that the bond itself quantified the consequence of a breach, requiring a person who violates the five-year service condition to pay Rs 61 lakh; the loss or adverse effect had thus already been assessed by the department at that figure. That interest, it held, could be protected by directing the petitioner to furnish an indemnity/undertaking to complete the balance bond period after the course, along with an undated cheque for Rs 61 lakh, rather than by refusing him leave.
On the department’s other objections, the Court found that no material had been placed on record to show any shortage of medical staff beyond a bald averment, and that the petitioner had undertaken to return and complete his bond period with an enhanced super-speciality qualification. As for the earlier denial of permission for the first NEET-SS attempt, the Court noted that it had rested on the same grounds, non-eligibility for a second study leave and the bond, which it had already addressed, and that those contentions could not be countenanced.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner’s leave be sanctioned within two days of his furnishing the indemnity undertaking and the undated cheque, that the NOC be issued, and that he then deposit the course fees; in case of any delay in the formalities, he was to be given joining on the strength of the order. The Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and would not be treated as a binding precedent.
Why it matters
The order is a useful illustration of how courts balance an employee’s aspiration for higher education against an employer’s legitimate interest in the continuity of service and the enforcement of a service bond. Government doctors and other public servants who wish to upgrade their qualifications often run into study-leave limits and bond conditions; the difficulty is acute where a hard-won seat, secured through a competitive examination, will be lost unless leave is granted in time. The Court’s approach, treating the right to pursue higher education as a valuable interest not to be lightly denied, gives real weight to that aspiration.
What makes the reasoning practical is the way it protects both sides. The employer’s concern is essentially financial, that a doctor who leaves mid-bond causes a loss, and that loss has already been fixed by the bond at Rs 61 lakh; by securing that sum through an indemnity and an undated cheque, and by taking the doctor’s undertaking to serve out the balance bond period after the course, the Court ensured the government is not left without recourse while still allowing the doctor to specialise. A blanket refusal, by contrast, would have sacrificed the doctor’s career opportunity to protect an interest that could be fully secured by other means.
The Court was careful to confine the ruling to the peculiar facts, expressly stating that it is not to be treated as a binding procedure. That caveat matters: the decision does not create an automatic entitlement to leave for every bonded employee, and much turned on the absence of any demonstrated staff shortage and on the enforceable safeguards the petitioner offered. Still, the order stands as a reminder that where an employer’s interest can be protected without denying an employee higher education, courts will lean towards enabling the education rather than foreclosing it.
Case Title: Dr Manish Kamra v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) 12457/2026]
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: September 15, 2026
Status: Writ petition allowed. Extraordinary leave and NOC directed to be granted to the government doctor for a Super-Speciality DNB cardiology course, on his furnishing an indemnity undertaking and an undated cheque for Rs 61 lakh to secure the service bond. Order confined to the peculiar facts; not a binding precedent.