SC Upholds Imposition Of Compulsory Service Bonds For Admission To PG Medical/Super Speciality Courses

No option. Have to fulfill bond condition 

Hi

You should file a RTI and confirm the fact that this 3years of job will fulfill the conditions or not.

If not, file a specific performance suit against the institute and make them sign a correct bond

Complete your course 

2) express your inability to work for hospital in West Bengal as you are bound by CHS rules of govt and have to work for  5 years with CHS 

3) if college seek to enforce bond file writ in HC against demand of Rs 30 lakhs 

You need to adhere to the govt condition or challenge the said issue before high Court in writ petition

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the writ petition filed seeking removal of compulsory bond conditions as imposed in the Super-Specialty Courses by many States, namely Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal.

The petition also sought direction for returning the original mark-sheets, certificates and other documents retained by the respective State authorities after the completion of the concerned specialty courses.

Along with it, one more writ petition was together taken up by Supreme Court that challenged the Notification dated 10.06.2014 issued by the Government of West Bengal by which every Post-Graduate trainee was directed to execute an Indemnity Bond to serve the State Government for a period of 3 years after successful completion of postdoctoral/MD/MS course and for a period of two years after successful completion of the PG Diploma course. If the trainees fail to serve the State Government as mentioned above, they shall be liable to recompense the State Government a penalty amount of ₹10 Lakhs for each defaulting year. The Appellants seek the release of original documents without insisting on the payment of ₹30 Lakhs as envisaged by the Notification dated 10.06.2014.

The Government of West Bengal issued a notice on 31.07.2013 that required the Appellant-doctors to work in the Multi-Speciality/ Super Speciality Hospitals, Secondary and Tertiary Level Hospitals in West Bengal for a period of one year after completion of their post-graduate and post-doctoral education in State Medical Teaching Institutions in West Bengal. Execution of bond at the time of admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality courses, providing that they shall serve the State Government for a period of one year on successful completion of the courses, failing which they will be liable to recompense the State Government a penalty amount of ₹10 Lakhs, was made compulsory.

This was assailed in Calcutta High Court following which the Government of West Bengal issued a Notification on 10.06.2014 by which the condition pertaining to one year service was increased to two years and the compensation on failure enhanced to ₹30 lakhs.

This created a ruckus and 139 Doctors who have acquired Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from various universities in the country challenged the aforementioned Notifications in the High Court.

The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by a judgment dated 03.11.2017 upheld the Notification dated 31.07.2013 though Notification dated 10.09.2014 was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

The State of West Bengal was not so happy with the single-judge judgment, thus filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Some of the Writ Petitioners who were aggrieved by the judgment insofar as it related to the Notification dated 31.07.2013 being upheld also filed appeals. By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that both the Notifications dated 31.07.2013 and 10.09.2014 are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it related to the Notification dated 10.09.2014 was quashed.

In one other writ petition wherein the Appellants who sought admission to post-graduate courses in Armed Forces Medical College, Pune were required to execute a similar bond to serve in the Armed Forces Medical 4 Services as Short Service Commission Officers for a period of five years on completion of the post-graduate courses and in case of failure to serve for 5 years, the Appellants were required to recompense the college with ₹25 Lakhs challenged the validity of Clause 12 of the Information Bulletin which required them to serve for five years in the Armed Forces Medical Services. They sought a further direction for return of their original documents without insisting on compulsory service condition. The writ petition filed in 2017 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by judgment dated 02.04.2019 with costs quantified at ₹1 Lakh per petitioner. Thus the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Crux of Judgements: It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that they became entitled for admission to post-graduate and super Speciality courses in the government medical colleges in the State of West Bengal on the basis of their merit in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE). According to them, additional eligibility conditions cannot be introduced by the State Government in respect of All India Quota candidates. Imposition of a condition of compulsory service infringes their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.In any case, introduction of compulsory bonds can only be by way of legislation and not by an executive order.State Government were also challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality as the State Government lacked competence to issue such notifications

The Division Bench upheld the Notifications dated 31.07.2013 and 10.09.2014 on the following basis:

The first issue was answered in favour of the State by the Division Bench holding that the provisions of Article 166 (1) & (2) were being complied with before the Notifications were issued. The Division Bench held that the Notifications issued by the State Government did not impinge on the freedom of the Appellants to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Article 162 of the Constitution refers to the extent of the executive power of the State Government and that power is not restricted only to matters on which legislation has already been passed. The Division Bench observed that the State Government has the right to fill the vacuum which exists due to the absence of any legislation and which can be filled by the executive instructions in the form of circulars/notifications.

The Division Bench was of the opinion that there is no fundamental right to pursue post-graduate medical education, especially in government colleges where higher education is subsidized. The Division Bench concurred 9 with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Appellants, who secured admissions in post-graduate medical colleges after taking an informed decision to receive education at a highly subsidized rate, cannot be permitted to question the compulsory medical service bonds. The point raised by the Appellants about the disability of the State Governments in introducing additional eligibility criteria was rejected by the Division Bench on the ground that the judgments of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) and Anand Biji (supra) were not applicable to the facts of this case. The Division Bench stressed the point relating to the primacy of public health when it comes in conflict with private interest.

The Division Bench rejected the point raised by the Appellants that the compulsory bonds were in violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act. It was held that the post-graduate medical courses and the service bond were a package. The Division Bench sought support from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Vinod Shankarlal Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr  to uphold the constitutionality of the Government Resolutions imposing service bond.

The Supreme Court thus dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants and held that all the Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein.

It also took note of the fact that certain State Governments have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the Appellants and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory bonds and thus suggested that suitable steps should be taken by the Union of India and the Medical Council of India to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in government institutions.

The Judgement was delivered by Justice L. NAGESWARA RAO and Justice HEMANT GUPTA on [deleted].

You can go through the following judgment which clearly explains based on your situation from which you can get remedy for the current problem.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No . 376 of2018

Association of Medical Super Speciality
Aspirants and Residents & Ors. .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Union of India & Others ....Respondent

1. Now when you have signed the Bond then you have no option but to abide by its terms. 

2. Now only if you wish to breach any oc its terms then your remedy lies on challenging it in high court by filing writ petition. 

3. Ther are instanc instances where the Calcutta high court has intervened in certain extra ordinary circumstances on violation of any oc its terms. 

1. People should not sign on the dotted line and burden themselves with contractual obligations if the condition is so onerous that they cannot fulfill it. Once the contract has come into existence the contractual obligations have to be discharged mutually by both parties, and there is no escape from it.

2. Supreme Court has upheld the condition of compulsory service bonds imposed in various states. So there can be no escape from it.

3. The remedy in your hands is to file a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the condition of 3 years work imposed by the college as unconstitutional.

You should follow GOI rules and express inability to work for state govt after completion of your course

Do what I told you in my previous reply.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your doubts are genuine and you are suggested to complete the course with great devotion and dedication. Just before completion of course, start writing to your parent organisation as well as to Govt of WB (Ministry of Health) to clarify as to whether you should work after completion of the course. If no, clearance is given, file a writ in the High Court praying for adequate directions to both the parties i.e. your parent organisation and Govt of WB (Ministry of Health). 

You can file a writ petition for cancelling anyone of the bond. 

Search for a hospital that fulfills both the terms and conditions of state as well as GOI

Then you can file objection for the same. One condition will be waived

you have not yet completed the course, in fact you even might not have started your course as on this date.

You pretty well know that you cannot work at two different place simultaneously, neither either of the government can insist you to work at both the places at the same time. 

Then what is your worry about it so soon.

You are governed by Central government rules even before joining this course and you were permitted to join this higher studies by your parent employer and not the West Bengal government.

Hence if you do not join back your parent employer on completion of this pot graduate studies you will be given notice and legal action shall be taken agaisnt you.

At that time you can file a writ petition against both the authorities and seek court intervention as well as relief for this.

In fact the cited judgment in my previous post gives a clear picture about it provided you go through it fully and understand the ruling given therein properly.

1. As per the information mentioned in the present query, makes it clear that you have been troubled by the dual policy of the state as well as the central government.
2. I would like to apprise you that there will be two condition which you need to look into for your better understanding:- first is that whenever there is discrepancy in the rules between centre and state, centre will prevail in education and service matters, second is that you will be governed by the first authority for whom you have signed.
3. You may have to file a writ of mandamus and certiorari under article 226 of our Constitution seeking immediate clarification either by the state or by the central to avoid any penalty been imposed on you in later future.