The Kerala High Court delivered a humane and carefully reasoned order in a case that mixed strict academic rules with a doctor’s fight against cancer and the realities of motherhood. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to reconsider the leave request of a DrNB trainee who had been denied permission because her total leave would cross the one-year limit under the new rules. The court also protected her from being removed from the programme while the fresh decision is taken.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Susan K. John, is a doctor who completed her MBBS and MD in General Medicine before securing a seat in the DrNB (Nephrology) super specialty course through NEET-SS in 2022. She joined the programme at Aster Medcity in Kochi in December 2022.
Read also:- Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Complaint, Says Justice Demands Restoration of Dismissed Case
During the course, she took maternity leave in 2023 after the birth of her second child. Later, in 2025, she was diagnosed with Stage IV high-grade B-cell lymphoma, a serious and aggressive blood cancer. Her treatment involved chemotherapy, and doctors advised a long period of rest before she could safely return to training.
When she applied for medical leave, NBEMS declined her request. The reason was simple but harsh: if her medical leave was added to the maternity and other leave already taken, the total would cross 365 days. Under the Comprehensive Leave Rules for NBEMS Trainees issued in 2024, any trainee who takes more than one year of leave faces cancellation of candidature. Faced with this, she approached the High Court seeking relief.
Read also:- Late Arbitration Award Can Survive: Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate
What the Rules Say
NBEMS relied on Clause 7(c) of its 2024 rules, which clearly states that if total leave during training exceeds one year, the trainee’s registration can be cancelled. The Board also pointed to earlier court decisions where trainees who crossed the limit were not allowed to continue.
The petitioner, however, argued that when she joined the course in 2022, older rules were in force. Those rules allowed the Board to relax limits in exceptional cases, such as prolonged illness, with prior approval. She said the new, stricter rules should not be applied to her situation, especially when her absence was due to cancer treatment and maternity.
Court’s Observations
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas took a close look at both sets of rules and the facts. The court noted that the earlier rules did allow flexibility in exceptional situations like serious illness. The judge observed that the petitioner’s case was not about taking leave by choice, but about circumstances beyond her control.
On maternity leave, the court made a strong point. “Maternity leave is not a favour. It flows from a woman’s reproductive rights and dignity,” the judge noted, while referring to Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions on the subject. The court said maternity leave cannot be treated in the same way as ordinary leave and should not be casually clubbed with other absences to punish a trainee.
The judge also distinguished this case from earlier rulings where trainees had taken very long breaks without such compelling reasons. Here, the petitioner had first taken approved maternity leave and later had to undergo treatment for a life-threatening disease. Applying the rule in a rigid way, the court said, would cause serious injustice.
Read also:- After 22 Years of Service, MP High Court Reinstates District Court Employees, Quashes Termination Orders
Decision
In the end, the High Court did not itself grant the leave. Instead, it struck a balanced path. The court allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh leave application through her institution within ten days. NBEMS has been directed to consider that request within two weeks, keeping in mind the “peculiar and extraordinary circumstances” of the case and without relying on the earlier rejection letters.
Importantly, the court ordered that the petitioner should not be removed from the DrNB programme in the meantime. Any leave granted, the judge said, must clearly be treated as a special case based on these unique facts. With that, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title:- Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) & Others
Case Number:- W.P.(C) No. 48652 of 2025
Date of Judgment:- 20 January 2026
