Right to Education Flows From Article 21, Suspension Can’t Block It: Orissa High Court Orders NOC to Suspended Doctor for Higher Studies

“Bond Conditions Must Be Interpreted in Light of Constitutional Rights — Even a Suspended Government Doctor Has the Right to Learn”— Orissa High Court, in a landmark judgment , quashed the government’s refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a suspended medical officer who had been selected for a prestigious fellowship in “Hepato Pancreatico Biliary Surgery” at Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai.

Justice A.K. Mohapatra observed:
“Right to education flows directly from the right to life under Article 21. The dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.”

Despite being under suspension due to a pending vigilance case, the Court held that the doctor’s suspension cannot extinguish his fundamental right to pursue higher education, particularly when the suspension is “interim and not punitive,” and the bond he signed makes no reference to such a restriction.

Fellowship Denied, Court Intervenes

The petitioner, Dr. Supreet Saurav, a government medical officer, had completed his MBBS and post-graduate degree in General Surgery. He was serving under a post-PG bond as per Odisha Government’s 2017 Resolution, which mandated two years of service after post-graduation. During this period, he was implicated in a vigilance case alleging demand of a ₹6,000 bribe for surgery at Jharsuguda DHH, leading to his suspension.

Despite being selected for the fellowship program by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, and a High Court order directing the authorities to consider his request, the Odisha Government refused to issue the NOC, citing three reasons:

1. The fellowship was not approved by the National Medical Commission (NMC).

2. The petitioner belonged to the Odisha Medical & Health Services (OMHS) cadre.

3. He was under suspension.

“A Doctor Can’t Be Denied Higher Education Based on a Bond Signed Under an Earlier Policy”—Court Rules Government Cannot Apply Later Restrictions Retroactively

Justice Mohapatra decisively rejected the state's reasoning, stating that none of the conditions cited for rejection existed in the 2017 bond, which the petitioner had signed.

Citing Clause 1(e) of the 2017 Resolution, the Court noted: “In case a candidate gets opportunity for higher study immediately after completion of course, the bond ceases to operate and will come into force after return from study.”

The Court held that: “There is no stipulation in the provisions of the said resolution which envisages a bar upon an OMHS cadre doctor from obtaining NOC to pursue higher studies. Nor is there any clause requiring NMC recognition for the course.”

Moreover, the government’s attempt to rely on 2021 and 2024 policy amendments was held to be inapplicable to the petitioner, who was governed strictly by the 2017 bond conditions.

“Suspension Cannot Become a Punishment in Disguise”—Court Warns Against Indefinite Delay in Disciplinary Process

Turning to the suspension, the Court expressed concern that although the doctor was arrested in February 2024 and released on bail later that month, neither the departmental proceedings were initiated nor the vigilance investigation concluded even after a year and a half.

Justice Mohapatra cited Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and P.R. Nayak v. Union of India to emphasize: “Suspension is meant to be an interim measure to aid disciplinary proceedings. If turned indefinite, it becomes punitive and is not legally tenable.”

He clarified that while the suspension order itself was not under challenge, it cannot be used as a ground to deny fundamental rights, especially when no clause in the bond restricts higher studies during suspension.

“Education Is Not a Luxury, It Is a Right”—Court Reaffirms Article 21 as Shield Against Bureaucratic Discretion

Invoking a series of Supreme Court precedents including Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., and Society for Unaided Private Schools, the Court declared:

“The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education… the ‘right to education’ is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.”

The Court made it clear that pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings alone cannot justify denial of NOC—especially when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, and the outcome is unknown.

Issue NOC Within Two Weeks, Let the Doctor Learn

Declaring the rejection order dated 16.12.2024 “wholly unsustainable in law”, the Court directed:

“The Petitioner shall approach Opposite Party No.1 for issuance of NOC. Upon verifying the fellowship details, an NOC shall be issued within two weeks, provided there is no other legal impediment.”

The issuance of NOC was made subject to the petitioner’s undertaking to appear before disciplinary and criminal authorities as and when required.

Law Upholds Aspiration Over Suspension

In this powerful affirmation of constitutional liberty and professional dignity, the Orissa High Court reminded the administration that rights do not vanish under suspension, and education is not a privilege to be granted by discretion, but a right protected by law.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025