CASE NAME: XXX v/s National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences and Ors.
CASE NUMBER: WP (C) No. 48652 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Kerala
DATE: 20 January 2026
QUORUM: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
FACTS
The Petitioner was selected in the NEET Super Speciality Examination of 2022 (NEET-SS) and was allotted the DrNB course in Nephrology, which she joined on 14 December 2022. During her course, she availed a maternity leave from 23 June 2023 to 22 November 202,3 i.e., of 184 days, when she gave birth to her second child and a few other days of leave, thereby totalling 207 days of leave in the year. During this time, the Petitioner contracted Stage IV High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma, which was a serious and aggressive form of blood cancer. The treatment commenced on 28 August 2025 and as per the certificate issued by Senior Consultant (Ext. P2) on 13 October 2025, her treatment was expected to be completed by January 2026 and with the required test, she expected to resume her training by March 2026 but by then, the total leave availed by her would exceed the permitted leave by 37 days. The petitioner further submitted a leave application (Ext.P5) for the period from 18 August 2025 to 18 February 2026; her request was declined, referring to Clause 7(c) with a direction to re-submit the leave application. Petitioner again submitted the leave application and letter pointing out her ailment, which was also not accepted, resulting in her submitting Ext. P9 application, which was declined. In the communications, it was mentioned that the Petitioner has, by virtue of the maternity leave already taken, the total leave availed by her would be 402 days and as per Clause 7(c), it is specifically stipulated that if the total leave availed during the training programme is more than a year, it shall lead to the cancellation of the candidature of the trainee and shall disentitle her from pursuing the NBEMS programme.
The Petitioner was informed that it must be ensured that the leave taken by her should not under any circumstances exceed one year. In all these communications, the petitioner had been directed to resubmit the leave application form, without exceeding one year, as otherwise the candidature was liable to be cancelled. In light of the present circumstances, the petitioner has approached the High Court through a writ petition.
ISSUES
- Whether Clause 7(c) of the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS Trainees, 2024 could be applied to the petitioner retrospectively, despite her admission under earlier rules permitting relaxation in exceptional circumstances.
- Whether the maternity leave can be clubbed with medical leave for calculating the one-year maximum leave limit.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Clause 3(d) and Clause 7(c) of the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees 2024.
- Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees, 2018.
- Manual for DrNB Super Speciality, 2022.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner contended that she joined the course in 2022 when the earlier NBEMS Leave Rules allowed relaxation in cases of prolonged illness. The excess leave availed by the Petitioner was due to unavoidable circumstances leading to exceptional cases. They contended that maternity leave is a constitutional and reproductive right and cannot be treated as ordinary leave. Further, they contended that the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees 2024 cannot be applied and cannot lead to termination from the DrNB programme.
RESPONDENTS:
The counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that the petitioner had joined the course on 14.12.2022 and she has to complete the same on time. As per the Leave Rules 2018, in exceptional cases like prolonged illness, the leave can be clubbed together with prior approval of the NBE, which can consider such a request on merit. However, the candidature of a trainee who has taken leave for more than a year is liable to be cancelled as per the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS. They contended that the total leave sought for by the petitioner, if approved, would extend beyond the permissible limit, as it would add up to 402 days, which exceeds the prescribed limit. Since it would exceed the maximum permissible leave limit of 365 days, the petitioner was advised to re-submit the leave application strictly in accordance with the Comprehensive Leave Guidelines. They contended that as per para 7(c) of NBEMS Comprehensive Leave Guidelines, leave exceeding one year would lead to cancellation of the candidature and dis-entitle the trainee from pursuing the NBEMS programme.
The counsel relied upon the judicial precedent of the Delhi High Court in Dr Neha Parashar v. National Board of Examination and Another [2025:DHC:11326] wherein it was observed that the candidate who has taken leave exceeding the approved limit is not entitled to continue the course conducted by NBEMS.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Court observed that at the time when the petitioner joined for the course, the relevant rules in force was The Manual for DrNB Super Specialty, 2022, which stipulated, in paragraph 7.8, that any extension of DrNB training, beyond the scheduled completion date is permissible only as stipulated in clause 7.5, The latter clause provided that under normal circumstances leave of one year should not be carried forward to the next year, but in exceptional cases such as prolonged illness, the leave across DrNB training may be clubbed together with prior approval of the NBEMS. The Court drew a comparison between the rules that were in force at the time the petitioner joined the DrNB course and the present rules, and it was observed that the erstwhile rules took into consideration exceptional situations such as prolonged illness, which could be considered by the NBEMS forthe grant of leave. The present rules, however, do not take into consideration any exceptional cases like prolonged illness. The Court stated that the reason for seeking leave beyond the period of one year is not attributable to any wilful conduct of the petitioner but as something that is attributable to an act which is beyond the petitioner’s control. It was held that the respondent cannot ignore the circumstance that the petitioner, after obtaining admission through a competitive examination, had to, due to a prolonged serious illness, take leave which was beyond her control. The serious illness contracted by her was not her mistake.
The Court observed that the 184 days of maternity leave availed by the Petitioner were approved post facto, however the facts remain that her maternity leave was approved. Reproductive rights of a woman have been recognised as a part of fundamental rights, and maternity leave has to be regarded as an aspect of reproductive rights. Such rights include a female postgraduate trainee to avail the leave. The Hon’ble Court referred to the decision in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (2025) 8 SCC 263. wherein it was held that Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights are now recognised as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law. The same was also recognised in Devika Biswas v. Union of India and Others (2016) 10 SCC 726 and in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others v. Ravina Yadav and Others 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4987. The court stated that extraordinary situations require an extraordinary approach and the present situation was one such unique situation. The general principle of leave cannot be applied to such rare instances. Therefore, the restriction in the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees 2024 ought not be applied pedantically.
Considering the case cited by the Respondents, the Court held that the factual situation in the instant case is different and such rigorous application of the said principle would lead to serious injustice to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court held that the Maternity leave being a right, it can be availed by a trainee like the Petitioner and cannot be clubbed with the other regular leaves that can be availed by such a trainee. The Petitioner ought to be permitted to submit a fresh application in a time-bound manner. With respect to the same, the Respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said request, considering the peculiar circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner shall not be terminated from the DrNB programme and the writ petition was disposed of.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the present case highlights the recognition of exceptional circumstances by the Court in situations wherein humanitarian situations providing constitutional rights like education and maternity leave must overpower and educational institution provisions cannot be applied pedantically.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI
