Right To Pursue Higher Education Can't Be Curtailed Lightly Even Though Not Declared As Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to pursue higher education cannot be curtailed lightly, even though it is not declared as a fundamental right.Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while permitting a doctor employed with the Delhi Government to pursue a three-year DNB Super Speciality Cardiology course despite the government's objections regarding his earlier study leave and...
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to pursue higher education cannot be curtailed lightly, even though it is not declared as a fundamental right.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while permitting a doctor employed with the Delhi Government to pursue a three-year DNB Super Speciality Cardiology course despite the government's objections regarding his earlier study leave and bond obligations.
“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 right to pursue higher education, which even though not spelt out as a fundamental right cannot be curtailed lightly,” the Court said.
Justice Singh was dealing with a plea filed by one Dr Manish Kamra seeking extraordinary leave for 36 months to pursue the DNB Super Speciality Course in Cardiology at Super Specialty Hospital, Janakpuri, after being allotted a seat under the All India Quota.
Kamra had qualified the NEET-SS 2025 examination and was allotted the seat during the second round of counselling conducted on August 12. He subsequently applied for extraordinary leave under Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
The authorities opposed the plea on the ground that Kamra had not obtained permission to appear for the NEET-SS examination and had already availed 36 months of study leave earlier.
It was also argued that he had executed a bond requiring him to serve for five years after returning to duty and was therefore in violation of its terms.
The Court noted that the doctor had already served one year and nine months after executing the bond which stipulated that in case of violation, he would be required to pay Rs. 61 lakh.
Justice Singh observed that the monetary interest of the government could be secured by requiring Kamra to furnish an indemnity or undertaking and an undated cheque for Rs. 61 lakh.
Further, the Court noted that Kamra had, in February 2025, sought permission to apply for the NEET-SS examination in identical circumstances, but the request had been rejected on the ground that he had already availed three years of study leave and was not eligible for a second period of study leave.
On this, the Court said:
“Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that this was the reasoning on which the petitioner was denied permission for study leave for the first NEET SS and the respondents are only concerned with the violation of the bond and non-eligibility of the petitioner for second study leave. The same has already been addressed above and hence, this contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced.”
The Court further noted that no material was placed on record to establish any shortage of medical staff, apart from a “bald averment”.
It also took note of Kamra's undertaking to return and complete the remaining bond period after acquiring the super speciality qualification.
“For the said reasons, the leave of the petitioner shall be sanctioned within two days of furnishing the affidavit/indemnity undertaking to complete the balance period of the bond after completing the course, and an undated cheque. Immediately upon issue of NOC, the petitioner shall deposit the fees,” the Court ordered.
It, however, clarified that its order was passed in the “peculiar fact and circumstances” of the case and would not be treated as a binding procedure.
Title: DR MANISH KAMRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS