Completion of a postgraduate course does not entitle a student to stipend for prolonged medical absence.

The petitioner, a postgraduate medical student at Respondent No. 3 College, sought quashing of the order dated 11 September 2015 and payment of stipend for 209 days, with interest.

He had remained absent from the postgraduate training course for 209 days on medical grounds and later resumed and completed the course.

The petitioner contended that, since the postgraduate course was of 36 months and he had ultimately completed it, he was entitled to stipend for the entire period.

The petitioner had admittedly been paid stipend for the period during which he attended the course, but not for the 209 days of absence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to stipend for the 209 days during which he remained absent from the postgraduate training course on medical grounds.

Whether completion of the 36-month postgraduate course entitled the petitioner to receive stipend for the entire course period, notwithstanding his 209 days of medical absence.

Whether the impugned order dated 11 September 2015 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied Rule 4(2) of the Pre-PG (Post Graduate/Diploma) Entrance Examination Rules, 2011, which permitted medical leave for 15 days without stipend, subject to the applicable procedural requirements, including prior permission and submission of a sickness certificate within the prescribed period.

It also considered the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 of the Medical Council of India, under which a postgraduate candidate was required to attend at least 80% of the training programme; stipend was available during the period of postgraduate training in accordance with the stipend paid to postgraduate students of the State.

The governing principle applied was that stipend is payable for the period of actual authorised participation in the training course and is not automatically payable for a period during which the student remained absent.

The Court exercised its power under Article 226 to determine whether the administrative decision was legally unsustainable or warranted judicial interference.

The Court found that the petitioner had himself admitted, in his application dated 6 January 2012, that he had remained absent for 209 days due to medical reasons.

Although the applicable regulations required minimum attendance and permitted disciplinary action, including expulsion, the College adopted a sympathetic approach by allowing him to rejoin after the 209-day absence, enabling him to complete the postgraduate degree.

This subsequent permission to resume and complete the course did not create an entitlement to stipend for the period when no training was attended.

Since the rules recognised medical leave without stipend only for the prescribed period and the petitioner had remained absent for 209 days, the authorities were justified in withholding stipend for that period.

The Court accordingly rejected the argument that completion of the course entitled the petitioner to stipend for all 36 months.

The administrative authorities had correctly rejected his claim under the applicable rules, and no ground for interference under Article 226 was established.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, with no direction for payment of stipend, interest, or litigation costs.