A completed DNB course cannot be invalidated solely for want of prior NOC in peculiar circumstances.

The applicant, a Medical Officer appointed in the Jammu and Kashmir Health Department in 2014, had completed more than eight years of service and her probation.

She appeared in NEET-PG 2022 and initially secured 246 marks against the General Category cut-off of 275 marks.

After the qualifying cut-off was reduced to 201 marks, she became eligible for admission to a Post-MBBS DNB course.

BOPEE issued a notification dated 22 October 2022 inviting applications from eligible in-service doctors for DNB seats.

The applicant applied and was allotted the DNB seat in General Medicine at Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu through counselling held on 11 November 2022.

The allotment was subject to production of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Health Department.

The respondents refused to issue the NOC on the ground that the applicant had not applied within the deadline of 10 January 2022 prescribed by Circular No. 05-JK(HME) of 2021.

The Director Health Services, Jammu, however, had informed the Administrative Department that the applicant had completed more than eight years of service and that the Directorate had no objection to issuance of the NOC.

By an interim order dated 16 November 2022, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to join the DNB course.

She thereafter continued and successfully completed the course during the pendency of the proceedings.

The respondents relied on Government Order No. 03-HME of 2019 and Circular No. 05-JK(HME) of 2021 to justify refusal of the NOC.

Whether the applicant could be denied an NOC solely for failing to apply by 10 January 2022, when she had not qualified NEET-PG by that date and became eligible only after the qualifying cut-off was subsequently reduced?

Whether the applicant’s admission and completed DNB course should be protected in view of the BOPEE allotment, the Director Health Services’ no-objection recommendation, and the Tribunal’s interim order permitting her to join the course?

Whether the respondents could deny recognition of the applicant’s DNB qualification and consequential service benefits merely because a formal NOC had not been issued before she joined the course?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied Government Order No. 03-HME of 2019 and Circular No. 05-JK(HME) of 2021, which regulate the deputation of in-service doctors for higher studies and prescribe timelines for seeking permission or NOCs in order to safeguard administrative and manpower requirements.

The Tribunal held that procedural timelines must ordinarily be respected, but cannot be applied mechanically where subsequent events materially alter the applicant’s eligibility and where strict application would produce an anomalous or disproportionate result.

It further applied the principle that while interim orders are subject to final adjudication, subsequent events and a fully implemented interim arrangement may be considered when reversal would cause disproportionate prejudice and serve no legitimate administrative purpose.

The Tribunal held that the prescribed deadline could not reasonably operate as an absolute bar in the applicant’s circumstances.

On 10 January 2022, she had not qualified for NEET-PG because her marks were below the then-prevailing cut-off; her eligibility arose only after the cut-off was reduced to 201 marks and the DNB admission process commenced in October 2022.

Requiring her to apply in January for a course for which she was not then eligible would defeat the rational purpose of the deadline.

The underlying administrative concern was also substantially addressed because the Director Health Services confirmed that she had completed over eight years of service and raised no objection to her pursuing the course.

The applicant was subsequently selected through the competent counselling authority, allotted a DNB seat, and permitted by the Tribunal to join and complete the course.

There was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, lack of merit, or academic ineligibility.

Since the interim order had been fully acted upon and the DNB qualification had already been acquired, nullifying the course solely for want of a prior formal NOC would cause serious and disproportionate prejudice without advancing any legitimate administrative objective.

The Tribunal therefore treated the interim protection as deserving of confirmation, while limiting its ruling to the peculiar facts of the case and preserving the general requirement of prior permission or NOC in ordinary cases.

The interim order dated 16 November 2022 was made absolute, and the respondents were directed to treat the applicant as duly permitted to pursue the DNB course in General Medicine at Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

They were further directed to regularize, in accordance with the applicable rules, the period spent by her pursuing the course, recognize and record her DNB qualification, and not deny consequential service consideration merely because the formal NOC had not been issued before her joining.

The necessary service-record formalities were to be completed within 12 weeks of receipt of the certified order.

There was no order as to costs.