Dr Prasannakumar R vs SOUTHERN RAILWAY

1 OA/310/01114/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01114/2026
th
Dated this the 15 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
Dr. Prasannakumar R
No.64/3, ICF East Colony,
Integral Coach Factory,
Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Maheswari
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Railways,
Government of India,
Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
Integral Coach Factory,
Ministry of Railways,
Chennai.
3. The Principal Chief Medical Officer,
Integral Coach Factory,
Ministry of Railways,
Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC

2 OA/310/01114/2026
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member)
The applicant being aggrieved by the rejection of his
request for grant of study leave by the impugned order, dated
31.08.2026, has filed the OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985, for quashing of the said
order and for a direction to the respondents to grant study
leave to the Applicant to undergo the Super Specialty Course
of Doctorate in Medicine (DM) in Critical Care Medicine for
the academic year 2026-29 as per the Provisional Admission
Letter issued to the Applicant by the Medical Counselling
Committee (MCC), DGHS, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India and to pass any such further
or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are
as follows:

3 OA/310/01114/2026
The Applicant is serving as Senior Divisional Medical Officer
in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and has rendered 12 years of
service in the Railway Hospital. His selfless and altruistic
contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic were duly
appreciated by the 2nd Respondent. Having qualified NEET
SS 2023, the Applicant was selected for the DM–Critical Care
Medicine super-specialty course at Apollo Hospitals for the
academic year 2023–2026; however, he could not pursue the
course due to the rejection of his study leave request by the
2nd Respondent, citing post-COVID-19 instances. The
Applicant has now qualified NEET SS 2025 and secured
admission to the DM–Critical Care Medicine course at
Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad, for the academic
year 2026–2029. However, his request for study leave has
again been rejected by the 2nd Respondent, rendering the
decision unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and
contrary to the applicable Rules. Aggrieved by the impugned
rejection, the Applicant has filed the present Original
Application seeking a direction to the Respondents to grant
study leave in accordance with the Rules, in the interest of
justice.

4 OA/310/01114/2026
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that
the Respondents’ rejection of the Applicant’s request for
study leave is contrary to the facts, the applicable provisions
of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM), and the
principles of natural justice, besides being arbitrary and
unreasonable. She submitted that the Applicant is a
meritorious candidate holding a DNB qualification in
Anaesthesiology and had secured admission to the DM–
Critical Care Medicine super-specialty course by qualifying
in the NEET SS 2025 competitive examination conducted on
26.12.2025 and 27.12.2025. The Applicant had also
participated in the counselling process by remitting the
requisite fee of 2,05,000/- and was issued a Provisional ₹
Allotment Letter dated 12.08.2026 confirming his admission
to the said course.
4. The learned counsel further contended that the
rejection of the Applicant’s request for study leave is
unsupported by adequate reasons, particularly when the ICF
Railway Hospital has a panel of anaesthetists to provide the
requisite medical services. She argued that the reasons cited

5 OA/310/01114/2026
by the Respondents do not justify the denial of study leave.
Emphasising the principles of administrative fairness and
reasonableness, she submitted that the Applicant’s request
ought to have been considered in accordance with the
applicable statutory provisions, particularly Rule 50 of the
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and Rule 221 of
the IRMM, which govern the grant of study leave.
5. The learned counsel also pointed out that a similarly
placed employee, Dr. Arun Saravanan, DMO, ICF Hospital
(E. No. 407652), had been sanctioned study leave to pursue
DM in Neurology for the academic period 2021–2024, in
three successive spells covering the periods from 04.01.2021
to 03.01.2022, 04.01.2022 to 03.01.2023, and 04.01.2023 to
03.01.2024. She contended that the denial of similar
treatment to the Applicant, without adequate justification, is
discriminatory, arbitrary and unfair. She further submitted
that the Applicant aspires to acquire super-specialty
expertise in Critical Care Medicine and thereafter continue
serving the Railways by applying his advanced medical

6 OA/310/01114/2026
knowledge and specialised skills for the benefit of patients at
the ICF Railway Hospital.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the
impugned decision reflects non-application of mind and fails
to satisfy the standards of fairness and reasonableness
expected of public authorities. She argued that the
Respondents cannot exercise their discretionary powers
arbitrarily so as to defeat the legitimate expectations of an
employee seeking to enhance his professional qualifications,
particularly when the acquisition of super-specialty expertise
would also benefit the Railway organisation and its
employees. The rejection, therefore, warrants interference for
want of proper and objective consideration of the Applicant’s
request.
7. The learned counsel lastly contended that the denial of
study leave unjustifiably impedes the Applicant’s
professional advancement and his pursuit of a super-
specialty career in Critical Care Medicine. She submitted

7 OA/310/01114/2026
that the impugned action is discriminatory and violative of
the principles of natural justice and the Applicant’s
fundamental rights. She further alleged that the rejection is
motivated by mala fide and extraneous considerations,
thereby jeopardising the Applicant’s career prospects in the
super-specialty field. On these grounds, she sought
appropriate directions to the Respondents to grant study
leave to the Applicant in accordance with the applicable
Rules.
8. She relied on the following judgments in support of his
contentions and prayed for the relief sought in the present
OA:
I) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of
Union of India & Ors. Vs. T. Anantha Jothi, Order dated
26.03.2021, reported in MANU/TN/2284/2021;
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit
Kumar Vs. Secretary, Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Other,
Order dated 15.07.2021, reported in MANU/SC/0453/2021;
iii) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of HP in the case of
Pankaj Chandel Vs. State of H.P. & Others, Order dated
9.04.2025, reported in MANU-HP-0503-2025.

8 OA/310/01114/2026
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents
vehemently opposed the Applicant’s contentions and relied
upon the averments made in the reply statement, denying
the allegations raised by the Applicant. He submitted that,
by letter dated 20.11.2023, the Applicant had informed the
authorities that he had been allotted a seat at Apollo
Hospitals, Chennai, for pursuing the Doctorate in Critical
Care Management and had requested either study leave or
extraordinary leave (EOL) for a period of three years from the
date of joining the course. He further submitted that, upon
due consideration, a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was
issued to the Applicant vide letter dated 13.09.2023, and
EOL was sanctioned vide Office Memorandum dated
22.12.2023. The Applicant joined the course but
subsequently discontinued it and, by letter dated
02.01.2024, requested cancellation of the sanctioned EOL
and permission to resume duty on personal grounds. In view
of these circumstances, the learned counsel disputed the
Applicant’s claim that he had previously been granted study
leave and contended that the earlier permission and sanction
of EOL could not be construed as approval of study leave.

9 OA/310/01114/2026
10. The learned counsel further submitted that the
services of the Applicant, a DNB-qualified specialist in
Anaesthesiology, are essential to the functioning of the
Railway Hospital, Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Chennai. He
pointed out that the hospital undertakes approximately 50 to
60 major and specialised surgeries every month, supported
by around five regular IRHS surgical specialists and 15 case-
to-case specialists/super-specialists. In these circumstances,
the continued availability of the Applicant’s specialised
services is vital for the efficient functioning of the hospital
and the uninterrupted delivery of essential medical and
surgical services.
11. The learned counsel contended that the Applicant’s
reliance on the case of Dr. Arun Saravanan is misplaced and
does not establish discriminatory treatment. He submitted
that Dr. Arun Saravanan, who possessed an MD in General
Medicine, was granted study leave to pursue DM in
Neurology, as the course enabled him to acquire a distinct
super-specialty skill set that was required by the Railway

10 OA/310/01114/2026
Administration. Further, he could be spared from duty
because two other regular IRHS specialists with
postgraduate qualifications in General Medicine, namely Dr.
Padma (MD General Medicine) and Dr. Rekha (DNB General
Medicine), were available to meet the hospital’s
requirements. He therefore argued that the circumstances of
Dr. Arun Saravanan are materially different from those of the
Applicant.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Applicant’s case stands on a different footing, as he already
possesses a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Critical Care from
JIPMER, Puducherry, an institution of national repute.
According to the Respondents, pursuing another post-
doctoral qualification in the same field would not
substantially enhance the Applicant’s utility to the Railway
Administration or confer any significant additional benefit on
the organisation. He emphasised that the Applicant is the
only regular anaesthetist available to provide continuous
services and that his absence would adversely affect

11 OA/310/01114/2026
essential surgical and emergency care. The hospital, he
contended, cannot ensure the continuity of its surgical
services without the regular availability of an anaesthetist.
13. The learned counsel also disputed the Applicant’s
contention that the availability of a panel of external
anaesthetists would adequately compensate for his absence.
He submitted that the provision for engaging outside
anaesthetists during vacancies, leave, sickness or other
temporary contingencies is intended only as an interim
arrangement to address exigencies, including emergency
cases. Such an arrangement, he argued, cannot be
construed as obligating the Railway Administration to relieve
its only regular anaesthetist for an extended period of three
years, irrespective of administrative requirements, service
exigencies and patient-safety considerations.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that the IRMM
is primarily intended to provide guidance to Railway
personnel dealing with medical and health-related matters

12 OA/310/01114/2026
and does not supersede the applicable statutory codes. In
the event of any inconsistency, the relevant statutory
provisions would prevail. He contended that the leave
provisions contained in the Indian Railway Establishment
Code, Volume I (IREC Vol. I), framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, have statutory force,
whereas the IRMM is an executive manual intended to guide
Railway medical officers and cannot override the statutory
leave rules. Relying on Rule 503 and Appendix V of the IREC,
Volume I, he submitted that leave cannot be claimed as a
matter of right and that leave of any kind may be refused or
revoked by the competent authority. Accordingly, the
Respondents maintained that the Applicant’s request for
study leave must be considered in the light of the applicable
statutory rules, administrative exigencies and the hospital’s
essential staffing requirements.
15. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel
for the respondents relied upon the following judgments and
prayed for dismissal of the OA:

13 OA/310/01114/2026
i) Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Others Vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bansal in Civil
Appeal No.4532/2009, Order dated 16.07.2009;
(ii) Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh
in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Madhya
Pradesh, Order dated 25.02.2026, reported in 2026:MPHC-
GWL-7647;
(iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in
WA No.64/2026, Order dated 28.02.2026, reported in
2026:CGHC:10458-DB.

16. We have considered the rival submissions put forth by
the learned counsel on either side at length, perused the
pleadings and materials on record. We have also carefully
gone through the respective case laws relied on by the
learned counsel for the parties.
17. The issue that arises for consideration in the present
Original Application is whether the Applicant is entitled to
the grant of study leave in accordance with the applicable
Rules or whether the competent authority has the discretion

14 OA/310/01114/2026
to refuse such leave in the public interest, having regard to
administrative exigencies.
18. Before examining the merits of the issue, it would be
appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian
Railway Medical Manual (IRMM) and the applicable rules
governing the grant of study leave:
228: Utilization of services of an outside anesthetist
during emergencies:-(1) _When a Railway anesthetist is
not available because of the post/posts is/are vacant, or
the anesthetist/anesthetists has/have gone on
leave/sick, or sent on duty elsewhere out of station, the
services of Anesthetist from outside may be utilized on
payment of the following fees towards professional
services:
Rule 50 & 51 of CCS Rules which reads as under and relevant portion
is extracted:
Rule 50: Conditions for grant of study leave
(1) Subject to conditions specified in this Chapter, study
leave may be granted to a Government servant with due
regard to the exigencies of public service to enable him to
undergo, in or out of India, a special course of study
consisting of higher studies or specialized training in a
professional or a technical subject having a direct and
close connection with the sphere of his duty.
(2) Study leave may also be granted:-
(i) for a course of training or study tour in which a
Government servant may not attend a regular academic
or semi- academic course if the course of training or the
study tour is certified to be of definite advantage to
Government from the point of view of public interest and

15 OA/310/01114/2026
is related to sphere of duties of the Government servant;
and…..
(3) Study leave shall not be granted unless-
nd
2 Proviso: Provided further that a Medical Officer may
be granted study leave for prosecuting a course of
postgraduate study in Medical Sciences if the Director-
General of Health Services certifies to the effect that such
study shall be valuable in increasing the efficiency of
such Medical Officer in the performance of his duties:
Provided also that a specialist or a technical person may
be granted study leave, on merits of each case for
prosecuting a postgraduate course of study directly
related to the sphere of his duty in case the Head of the
Department or the Secretary to the Department or
Ministry concerned certifies that the course of study
shall enable the specialist or the technical person, as the
case may be, to keep abreast with modern development
in the field of his duty, improve his technical standards
and competence and thus substantially benefit the
department or ministry.
"51. Maximum amount of study leave
(1) The maximum amount of study leave, which may be
granted to a Government servant, other than Central
Health Service Officers, shall-
(a) ordinarily twelve months at any one time, and
(b) during his entire service, twenty-four months in all
(inclusive of similar kind of leave for study or training
granted under any other rules).
(2) In respect of Central Health Service Officers, study
leave may be granted for thirty-six months for acquiring
postgraduate qualification, subject to the condition that
a Central Health Service Officer who has been granted
such study leave shall execute a bond under sub-rule.
(4) of Rule 53 to serve the Government for a period of five
years after completion of the study course“

16 OA/310/01114/2026
19. From the perusal of the paper book would go on to
show that the matter was to be put up to the competent
authority, and thereafter the impugned order dated
31.08.2026 was passed whereby the request of the applicant
for study leave to pursue the DM in Critical Medicine course
at Gandhi Medical College, Secundrabad was rejected, which
is a non-speaking order.
20. A perusal of Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave)
Rules, 1972, indicates that study leave may be granted to a
Government servant where the proposed course of training
or study tour is certified by the competent authority to be of
definite advantage to the Government from the standpoint of
public interest. Such certification is a prerequisite for the
grant of study leave. The second proviso to Rule 50(3) further
provides that a medical officer may be granted study leave to
pursue a postgraduate course in Medical Sciences, subject to
certification by the Director of Health Services that the
course would be valuable in enhancing the officer’s efficiency
in the discharge of official duties. Further, Rule 50(6)
stipulates that study leave shall not be granted with such

17 OA/310/01114/2026
frequency as to sever the Government servant’s connection
with regular work or cause cadre difficulties on account of
the officer’s absence.
21. Upon consideration of the aforesaid provisions, we find
that the impugned order does not disclose any consideration
of the relevant statutory requirements governing the grant of
study leave. The principal ground now advanced by the
Respondents is the alleged shortage of anaesthetists in the
organisation. However, this justification does not find
mention in the impugned order and has been raised only in
the reply statement, thereby depriving the Applicant of an
opportunity to address the said ground at the time of the
original decision. This omission has caused prejudice to the
Applicant and raises concerns regarding the proper
application of mind by the competent authority.
22. The judgments relied upon by the Respondents
primarily emphasise that the grant of study leave falls within
the discretion of the employer. While such discretion cannot

18 OA/310/01114/2026
be disputed, it must be exercised judiciously, in accordance
with the applicable Rules, and on the basis of relevant
considerations. The mere existence of discretionary power
does not absolve the competent authority of its obligation to
consider each request on its own merits. The grant or refusal
of study leave must, therefore, depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the individual case, and a decision in one
case cannot, by itself, operate as a conclusive precedent for
another.
23. With regard to the issue of Grant of Study Leave, the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Union of India v. T.
Anantha Jothi , W.P. No. 23245 of 2019, has observed in its
decision, dated 26.03.2021, as follows:
“14. The Tribunal, has also taken note of the fact that
persons similarly placed have been granted such a relief
by various CATs, as affirmed by the High Court of
Calcutta and in the light of the above facts and
circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly came to the aid
of the respondent/Original Applicant by quashing the
impugned order and allowed the Original Application.
15. This Court, on an independent application of mind to
the entire materials, is of the considered view that there
is no error apparent on the face of the record or infirmity
in the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in allowing the
Original Application.

19 OA/310/01114/2026
16. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed,
confirming the order dated 13.11.2018 made in
O.A.No.310/00479/2018 on the file of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. No costs.
Interim Order already granted stands vacated and
consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”

24. On the similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
decision, dated 15.07.2021 in the case of Rohit Kumar Vs
Secretary …Delhi, in Civil Appeal No.2739/202, has
observed that
“41. In this case, there has not been any lapse on the
part of the Appellant. The Appellant could not joint the
post graduate course in PGI Chandigarh for the January
2021 session for reasons attributable to the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 though technically, the said Respondents
cannot be said to have acted illegally or in breach of
rules and regulations, in denying the Appellant Study
Leave, in apprehension of rise in COVID-19 cases and
the exigency of availability of doctors in full strength, as
far as possible.
42. The Appellant, who could not join the post graduate
course, due to the denial of Study Leave by the
Government pursuant to a legitimate policy decision and
in response to the call of duty, cannot now be denied
relief on the hyper technical ground that the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 had not breached any rules or regulations.
It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to the
Appellant, when the Appellant had to make a personal
sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause
of humanity.
43. Since the seat in the Post Graduate Course in PGI
Chandigarh which remained unfilled due to the inability
of the Appellant to join has been carried over to the July
2021 session which is yet to commence, and re-
advertised, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
PGI, Chandigarh, being the Respondent No. 3 to admit
the Appellant to the post graduate course scheduled to
commence in July 2021, on the basis of INICET 2020,
which he has successfully cleared. The Respondent No. 1

20 OA/310/01114/2026
shall re-consider the application of the Appellant for
Study Leave, taking into consideration the decline in
COVID-19 cases in NCT of Delhi, and take a reasonable
decision in favour of the Appellant. Unless there is a
substantial rise in COVID-19 cases, the leave application
of the Appellant shall not be declined.
44. These directions are being passed in exercise of the
power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
having regard to the fact that the Appellant had cleared
INICET 2020 held in November 2020 and had been
offered admission to PGI, Chandigarh, but could not join
as he was not released on Study Leave in view of the
serious COVID-19 situation prevailing in NCT of Delhi at
the material time, and this order will not be treated as a
precedent.
45. The appeal is disposed of, accordingly. The impugned
judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court, and judgment and order of the Single Bench of
the High Court dated 02.02.2021 are set aside.”
25. Recently the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh
at Shimla in LPA No.33/2025, Order dated 09.04.2025 on an
identical issue has held that
“10. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires
that the aforesaid order passed by the respondents in
compliance to order dated 20th March, 2025 is not a
speaking order as directed to be passed keeping in view
the provisions of the Rules, rather reference has been
made to a policy. It is a trite law that policy is an
executive instruction only to supplement the rules and
cannot over-ride them.
11. Perusal of the same would further go to show that
the reliance or denial as such is again on the ground that
there was no policy to grant study leave/extraordinary
leave to Medical Officers for pursuing three years’
fellowship programmes, that too in a private institute,
situated at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The other ground on

21 OA/310/01114/2026
which the petitioner's request was rejected was that the
State Government did not send its doctors on long-term
fellowship programs due to acute shortage of specialists
in the State and in the absence of long term fellowship
policy.
12. It has also come on record that one Dr. Praveen
Kumar, Medical Officer (Eye), Civil Hospital, Haroli,
District Una was granted benefit of study leave on
19.10.2023, which has also been brought on record by
the State itself, apparently in view of the directions
passed by this Court in the order dated 20.03.2025 and
it has been sought to justify that the doctor has left the
course midway due to his ill health. The fact, however,
remains that the State as such has granted the said
benefit of study leave to an employee of the Health
Department. There is no reference as such in the
affidavit as to how many cases were rejected over the last
three years.
15. The perusal of the paper book would go on to show
that the matter was to be put up by the Director, Health
Services, Department of Health and Family Welfare to the
Principal, Health Secretary to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh and the matter was to be discussed
with the Chief Minister for the grant of said benefits.
Thereafter, impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure
P-15) was passed by the Special Secretary (Health) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the request
of the petitioner for study leave to pursue the fellowship
course as such was rejected, which is a non-speaking
order.
28. We have already referred to the Rule in question to
show that denying the petitioner the benefit, the State
should have passed a reasoned order within the scope of
the provisions of Rule 50 of the CCS Rules and record a
well-reasoned finding. On two occasions, despite the
opportunities granted, the State has failed to bring their
case specifically within the ambit of the Rule. Otherwise
also, the Health Department would as such gain by the
benefit of the higher studies of the petitioner, which he is
going to obtain. Petitioner being a Medical Officer/Senior
Resident is entitled for maximum study leave of three
years, as per Rule 51 of the CCS Rules and the
instructions issued thereafter covering study leave for
fellowship, which fact has been ignored by the learned
Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment.

22 OA/310/01114/2026
29. In such circumstances, we allow the present appeal
and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge
and direct the State as such to grant the study leave and
NOC to the petitioner as prayed for, within a period of
one week from today, in terms of the Rule in question
and the writ petitioner/appellant shall comply with the
conditions of the bond etc., as in Rules.
30. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.”
26. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments to the facts of the present case, we find that the
impugned order dated 31.08.2026 is a non-speaking order,
as it does not disclose adequate reasons for rejecting the
Applicant’s request for study leave. The Respondents have
sought to justify the rejection on the ground of an alleged
shortage of doctors only in their reply statement. It is a
settled principle that an order must stand or fall on the
reasons stated therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh
grounds subsequently introduced through pleadings.
Consequently, the Respondents cannot sustain the
impugned order by relying on reasons that do not form part
of the order itself.
27. We further find that, while considering the Applicant’s

23 OA/310/01114/2026
request for study leave, the competent authority was
required to exercise its discretion judiciously, in accordance
with Rule 50 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, by taking into
account the relevant facts and circumstances and recording
cogent reasons for its decision. The impugned order does not
demonstrate that the Applicant’s case was examined in the
light of the applicable Rules or that the relevant
considerations governing the grant of study leave were duly
taken into account. We also find that the provisions relating
to the permissible duration of study leave, including Rule 51
of the CCS (Leave) Rules and the subsequent instructions
governing study leave for fellowship and specialised courses,
required due consideration. The failure to demonstrate such
consideration renders the impugned order unsustainable.
The rejection of the Applicant’s request, without a reasoned
decision based on the applicable Rules, cannot therefore be
sustained.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion and the principles
laid down in the judgments referred to above, we quash and

24 OA/310/01114/2026
set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2026. The
Respondents are directed to reconsider the Applicant’s
request for study leave and grant the necessary study leave
and No Objection Certificate (NOC), subject to fulfilment of
the applicable Rules and conditions, including execution of
the requisite bond, within a period of 15 days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
29. With the above direction, the OA is allowed on the
terms indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
15. 10.2026
mas

M A
SUNDA
R
Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
Date:
2026.11.02
16:38:16 +05'30'