Maternity Leave Is A Right, Cannot Be Clubbed With Discretionary Regular Leaves : Kerala HC Directs NBEMS To Reconsider Trainee’s Leave, Bars DrNB Candidature Cancellation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that maternity leave is a right and cannot be treated as regular leave to trigger cancellation of an NBEMS trainee’s candidature. The Court dealt with a challenge by a DrNB trainee selected through NEET-SS, whose candidature was threatened after NBEMS proposed to aggregate her maternity leave with other leave and count the combined period towards the one-year ceiling. The Court directed the trainee to submit a fresh leave request within 10 days, required NBEMS to decide it within two weeks, and ordered that she not be removed from the programme in the meantime.
The petitioner had joined the DrNB Nephrology programme pursuant to selection through the NEET Super Speciality Examination, 2022. During the course of training, she availed maternity leave following childbirth and subsequently applied for additional medical leave after being diagnosed with Stage IV High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma, requiring prolonged chemotherapy and recovery.
The examining authority declined her leave applications on the ground that the cumulative leave exceeded one year, invoking Clause 7(c) of the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS Trainees, 2024, which stipulates cancellation of candidature if total leave exceeds one year. Communications were issued directing the petitioner to resubmit her leave application without exceeding the prescribed limit, failing which her candidature would stand cancelled.
The petitioner challenged these communications, contending that she was governed by the leave rules in force at the time of admission, which permitted relaxation in exceptional cases such as prolonged illness, and further contended that maternity leave could not be clubbed with medical leave to attract cancellation of candidature.
The Court observed that “DrNB course is a Doctoral level Super Specialty Programme which a candidate can join after qualifying the NEET-SS.” It noted that the petitioner had availed maternity leave and thereafter contracted a serious illness requiring prolonged treatment, leading to additional leave.
On the applicable rules, the Court stated that “at the time when the petitioner joined for the course, the relevant rules in force was Exhibit P3,” which permitted clubbing of leave in exceptional cases such as prolonged illness with prior approval. The Court contrasted this with the later rules and recorded that “the present rules however, do not take into consideration any exceptional cases like prolonged illness.”
The Court recorded that “the petitioner having joined the DrNB course at the time when such exceptional circumstances were made a reason for grant of an extension, she has been put to serious prejudice by virtue of the change of rules.” It further 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.”
With respect to maternity leave, the Court observed that “The right of a woman which no doubt will include a female post graduate trainee, to avail maternity leave cannot be denied. De hors the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, a woman must be deemed to possess a right to be granted leave during a reasonable period of her pregnancy. This period must also include the time to recuperate. Maternity leave being a right and other leaves being a discretion, this Court is of the view that the maternity leave availed by a trainee like the petitioner cannot be clubbed with the other regular leaves.”
The Court further noted that “the general principle that a person shall not avail a leave beyond one year… cannot be applied to such rare instances like the present.” It concluded that “the restriction in the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS trainees 2024 ought not be applied pedantically, to the petitioner.”
The Court directed that “if the petitioner submits a fresh application for leave through the institution, within ten days from the date of receipt of this judgment, the first respondent Board shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said request without regard to Exhibit P8 and P10 and considering the peculiar circumstances arising in the instant case and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The grant of leave, if any, by the first respondent, based on the leave application submitted by the petitioner shall be specifically observed as being on account of the extraordinary circumstances arising in the instant case. In the meantime, petitioner shall not be terminated from the DrNB programme.” The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. George Jacob (Jose), Advocate; Sri. Roshan Jacob Mundackal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri. T. Sanjay, Standing Counsel for NBEMS; Smt. O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Shri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Advocate; Shri. Karthik S. Acharya, Advocate; Shri. K. John Mathai, Advocate; Sri. Joson Manavalan, Advocate; Sri. Kuryan Thomas, Advocate; Shri. Paulose C. Abraham, Advocate; Shri. Raja Kannan, Advocate; Shri. Pranoy Harilal, Advocate
Case Title: Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:7594
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 48652 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
