SUSAN K. JOHN V. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS IN MEDICAL SCIENCES, (NBEMS) 2026:KHC:7594:

DATE: 20/01/2026

COURT: High Court of Kerala

BENCH: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

FACTS:

The petitioner is a medical professional who completed her MBBS and MD in General Medicine and was selected through the NEET Super Speciality Examination, 2022, for admission to the DrNB (Nephrology) course conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS). She joined the super specialty course on 14 December 2022 at the fourth respondent institution. While undergoing the course, the petitioner availed maternity leave from 23 May 2023 to 22 November 2023, amounting to 184 days, following the birth of her second child. Along with other permissible leave, the total leave availed by her during that period came to 205 days, which was granted post facto by the authorities.

Subsequently, during the course of her training, the petitioner was diagnosed with Stage IV High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma, a serious and aggressive form of blood cancer. She commenced chemotherapy treatment on 28 August 2025, with medical certification indicating that treatment would conclude by January 2026 and that she would be fit to resume training by March 2026. The petitioner accordingly sought medical leave from 18 August 2025 to 18 February 2026. However, NBEMS rejected her leave applications on the ground that her total leave, including maternity and medical leave, would exceed one year (402 days), thereby attracting Clause 7(c) of the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS Trainees, 2024, which mandates cancellation of candidature if leave exceeds one year.

ISSUES:

The principal issues before the Court were whether the petitioner’s maternity leave could be clubbed with medical leave for the purpose of applying the one-year cap under Clause 7(c) of the NBEMS Comprehensive Leave Rules, 2024; whether the stricter 2024 Rules could be retrospectively applied to a candidate who joined the course under earlier, more liberal rules; and whether denial of leave in extraordinary circumstances involving maternity and life-threatening illness was arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court held that the petitioner’s case involved extraordinary and exceptional circumstances and that the rigid application of Clause 7(c) of the 2024 NBEMS Leave Rules would result in grave injustice. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to submit a fresh leave application, which NBEMS must consider afresh without reference to the earlier rejection orders. It further ordered that the petitioner shall not be terminated from the DrNB programme pending such consideration and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

The Court first examined the regulatory framework applicable at the time the petitioner joined the DrNB course. It noted that when the petitioner was admitted in December 2022, the governing rules expressly permitted relaxation in exceptional circumstances such as prolonged illness, allowing leave to be clubbed across the training period with prior approval of NBEMS. In contrast, the 2024 Comprehensive Leave Rules, which imposed an absolute bar on leave exceeding one year, did not provide any exception for prolonged or serious illness. The Court found that applying the stricter rules retrospectively caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when her inability to continue training arose from circumstances wholly beyond her control, namely maternity and a life-threatening cancer diagnosis.

The Court also placed significant emphasis on the constitutional and legal status of maternity leave. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, it held that maternity leave is not a discretionary benefit but a facet of a woman’s reproductive rights, dignity, and equality, protected under Articles 14, 21, and 42 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that maternity leave could not be treated on par with ordinary or discretionary leave and therefore could not be mechanically clubbed with medical leave to trigger punitive consequences such as termination of candidature. Given the unique convergence of maternity and serious illness in the same training period, the Court concluded that extraordinary situations demand an extraordinary approach, justifying judicial review and relaxation of rigid academic norms to prevent manifest injustice.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the tension between rigid regulatory frameworks and the equitable treatment of individuals facing extraordinary circumstances. The petitioner’s situation involved the convergence of two exceptional factors, maternity and a life-threatening illness—which were entirely beyond her control. The strict application of Clause 7(c) of the 2024 NBEMS Leave Rules, which mandates cancellation of candidature if total leave exceeds one year, would have penalized her for circumstances arising from natural and unavoidable events. By emphasizing the rules in force at the time of her admission, which allowed for exceptional extensions of leave in cases of prolonged illness, the Court underscored the principle that administrative regulations should not operate in a vacuum and must account for fairness, proportionality, and the context in which they are applied. Retrospective application of stricter rules, particularly when they disregard prior allowances for exceptional circumstances, was correctly identified as causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

Furthermore, the Court’s analysis placed significant weight on the constitutional protection of reproductive rights and maternity benefits. Recognizing maternity leave as an inherent aspect of a woman’s dignity, equality, and right to health, the Court distinguished it from ordinary leave, emphasizing that it cannot be treated as discretionary or counted mechanically toward punitive thresholds. The judgment reflects a nuanced balancing of academic regulations with fundamental rights, holding that extraordinary circumstances justify judicial intervention to prevent manifest injustice. By allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh leave application and ensuring that she would not face termination pending its consideration, the Court reinforced the principle that regulatory rules, while necessary for administrative discipline, must be applied flexibly to accommodate human realities such as serious illness and motherhood. This approach underscores the importance of equity and individualized consideration in academic and professional governance, especially in life-altering circumstances.