Kolkata: Observing that the decision to grant study leave is taken by the authorities after ensuring that the public health services do not get adversely affected, the Calcutta High Court recently upheld the State Government’s decision to deny study leave to a senior radiologist, an HoD at Sagar Dutta Hospital, Kamarhati.”…the decision of the authority to grant study leave for pursuing higher qualification is to be based on several factors as taken note of above. The authority is required to consider the past services rendered by the Doctors, seeking study leave. The nature of course sought to be pursued with reference to its benefit for larger public interest during service tenure of the Doctor concerned is also to be considered. While granting such leave the State also has to ensure that availability of health services in public interest is not adversely affected in public charitable institutes, hospitals, health centers which are catering to public health care. Therefore, the decision to grant; or a circumstance requiring rejection of request for study leave is a decision to be taken by the authority having regard to such relevant factors, and the provisions contained in the rule(s) for grant of study leave, to serve the larger public interest,” observed the HC bench comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas.While considering the plea filed by Dr Das, the HC Division bench observed that the concerned doctor, who heads the radiology department at the state-run hospital, had already availed three years of government-sponsored trainee reserve leave earlier in his career for postgraduate training.”Viewed thus we found from consideration of the facts and circumstances and study leave rules in the WBSR; that the petitioner earlier availed Government sponsored study leave. He has not been able to make out a case of discrimination in the matter of garnt of study leave/leave. While rejecting the petitioners claim the authority also considered the adverse impact of grant of such leave to the petitioner, on health care services at the hospital where he is posted since there is no other senior doctor in the concerned department…Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision of the Director of Medical Education West Bengal Dated 04.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for study leave for pursuing the Post- Doctoral Certificate Course in Neuroradiology at IPGME & R for the Session 2024-25,” the HC bench observed while upholding the State Government’s decision.The petitioner sought study leave under the West Bengal Service Rules. However, his request was rejected by the Director on 04.09.2025, in larger public interest of patient care and services, keeping in view the scarcity of Senior Faculty in the Radiology Department at the petitioner’s present place of posting.Thereafter, the petitioner challenged this decision. His counsel submitted that the petitioner was not pressing his claim for grant of benefit under the 2015 Rules. He was in fact, claiming leave under WBSR-I, to pursue the PDCC, and during the course, he submitted that he would not avail any salary. Therefore, the relief that he asked for was for grant of leave without pay under the WBSR Rules, 1974.The petitioner alleged discrimination being meted out to him by the authorities. He submitted that the authorities were selectively considering the study leave application, as other doctors were granted study leave/leave under the Trainee Reserve Rules 2015. Therefore, he argued that the arbitrary and discriminatory grant of study leave to the doctors was to prejudice him.On the other hand, the learned AAG for the State submitted that the petitioner had earlier availed benefit under the 2015 Rules. His service was covered by the 2015 Rules framed for his service and therefore, he cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions contained in the WBSR for grant of leave to him.It was submitted that the Director, while disposing of the petitioner’s leave application, took note of the fact that since he has already availed the three years’ leave period, he was not anymore eligible for grant of such leave under the 2015 Rules.The Director further dealt with the shortage of doctors in the department of Radiology at the Sagar Datta Hospital where the petitioner was posted. The Director stated that there was only one Professor (petitioner) and one Associate Professor in the Radiology Department. The Associate Professor was granted permission for pursuing the same course, and if both of them were allowed to pursue PDCC in Neuroradiology, at the same time that would lead to service difficulties and continued absence of both of them for a period of one year would inevitably lead to hardship to the patients requiring care in the concerned department. The petitioner’s prayer for one year leave to pursue the PDCC, therefore, in the opinion of the Director, could not be granted.Observations by High Court: While considering the matter, the HC bench…

Original source: in