Dr. Vinod Shankarlal Sharma And 61 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 353 Bom

                                                     d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION




                                                                           
                    WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1862 OF 2012




                                                   
     Dr. Vinod Shankarlal Sharma and 61 others              ...        Petitioners
     Vs.
     The State of Maharashtra and another                   ...        Respondents




                                                  
                                 WITH
                    WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1863 OF 2012




                                      
     Dr. Maulik Sumantbhai Doshi and 68 others
                        ig                                  ...        Petitioners
     Vs.
     The State of Maharashtra and others                    ...      Respondents
                      
     Mr. V. M. Thorat with Ms P. V. Thorat for Petitioners.
      


     Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde, GP with Mr. M. D. Naik, AGP and Ms S. S.
     Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
   



     Mr. Mahendra Sethna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Advait Sethna with Mr.
     Parag A. Vyas and Mr. M. S. Bharadwaj for Respondent No.4.





     Mr. Ritesh Ratnam i/b. Mr. Ganesh K. Gole for Respondent No.5.


                               CORAM: DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND
                                      R. G. KETKAR, JJ.

DATE : 7 NOVEMBER, 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been

instituted by doctors, who have either completed or are students of Super-

speciality courses in Medicine. On the non-surgical discipline, the super-

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

speciality course is D.M. while on the surgical side, the super-speciality

course is M.Ch. Of the 62 doctors in the first Petition and 69 doctors in the

second, the distribution is in three batches. The first batch consists of

doctors, who had obtained admission to the D.M. or M.Ch. in 2009 and

who have passed their course in September 2012. The second batch is of

doctors, who were admitted in 2010 and who would be completing their

course of studies in 2013, while the third batch consists of doctors, who

were admitted in 2011 and who would be completing their studies in 2014.

All the doctors before the Court have completed their basic M.B.B.S.

Degree as well as a post-graduation in the relevant branches of medicine in

which they have specialized.

2. The genesis of the dispute in the present case arises from the policy

of the State Government which requires doctors who embark upon studies

in medicine to furnish a bond that upon completing their studies, they shall

serve for a stipulated period in Government Medical Colleges, those run by

local self-governing bodies or, as the case may be, in hospitals affiliated to

the defence services. On 31 July 2006, a Government Resolution was

issued, which took note of the fact that while the State Government and

Municipal Corporations incur a considerable amount of expenditure

towards meeting the expenses of graduate and post-graduate education in

the colleges run by them, the fees charged by those colleges do not meet

the cost of education. Since the expenditure is met through the public

exchequer, the State Government envisaged that graduate and the post-

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

graduate students from State Government and Municipal Corporation run

Colleges should be required to serve either the State Government or, as the

case may be, local self-governing bodies or the defence services for a

stipulated period and that a bond should be executed by them. For the

present purposes, it may not be necessary to refer to the Government

Resolution dated 31 July 2006 in any great detail since it was replaced by a

subsequent Government Resolution dated 8 February 2008.

3. Under the Government Resolution dated 8 February 2008,

candidates who complete post-graduate studies from medical or dental

colleges conducted by the Government or by Municipal Corporations, are

required to serve the State Government, local bodies or defence services for

a period of one year. A penalty of Rs.15 lakhs is provided if a candidate

refuses to fulfill the obligation, which is sought to be enforced by the

execution of a bond. This provision is made in Clause 2 of the Government

Resolution. Clause 3 of the Government Resolution stipulates that for

candidates who join super-speciality courses, the condition of one year

service would stand relaxed. Clause 3.1 stipulates that upon completing

education in a super-speciality course from a Government or Municipal

Corporation run medical college, a candidate must serve for a period of two

years, and in the event of a failure to do so, would be subjected to a penalty

of Rs.25 lakhs. Under the earlier Government Resolution, it was provided

that in order to be eligible to appear for the post-graduate medical entrance

test, a candidate had to discharge the obligation of public service. That

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

condition was relaxed by Clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 8

February 2008. Clause 6 of the Government Resolution stipulated that the

conditions prescribed, as noted above, would apply to all those who were

on the date of the Resolution pursuing their education in Government or

Municipal Corporation run medical colleges and that it would also apply to

students admitted through the All-India quota and to those who are

nominated by the Central Government. Clause 8 provided that the

Government Resolution would come into effect from the common entrance

test of 2008 in the case of degree and super-speciality courses, and from the

common entrance test of 2009 in the case of post-graduate courses.

4. By a subsequent Government Resolution resolution dated 28 May

2010, the penalty for a breach of bond by students admitted to super-

speciality courses has been enhanced from Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.2 crores. The

execution of the decision was made applicable for the super-speciality

common entrance test to be held from 2010. Subsequently, by a

Government Resolution dated 21 March 2012, the period of the bond has

been revised to a requirement of one year service instead of two years'

service for students, who have obtained degrees in a super-speciality

courses from academic year 2008-2009.

5. Since both the Petitions, before the Court, deal with cases involving

super-speciality courses, the discussion in this judgment would be confined

to that aspect.

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

6. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the Petitioners

at the hearing are as follows:

(i) In the case of doctors, who have super-speciality

qualifications such as D.M. and M.Ch., there can be no requirement to

render Government service. No reservation is permissible in the case of

admission to super-speciality courses in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India1. Super-specialized

doctors constitute a pool of national talent or asset. Doctors, who pursue

such courses, come from all over the country and not only from the State of

Maharashtra and as a national resource, they should be allowed to serve in

any State in the country and not only in the State of Maharashtra.

Consequently, the imposition of a condition under the bond that they would

render service in government or municipal medical hospitals or in the

defence services for a stipulated period is unconstitutional and violates

Article 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) In the event that the Court holds that a bond can be imposed

on super-speciality students, they should be provided with jobs

commensurate with their qualifications. Upon the completion of their

M.Ch. or D.M. degree courses, such doctors cannot be asked to work in

broad-speciality areas. The posts to which they are assigned must be

commensurate with their qualifications. The qualifications for a post are

prescribed in the recruitment rules and it is only in respect of those posts

1 (1984) 3 SCC 654

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

where the recruitment rules require the appointment of a D.M. or M.Ch.

qualified doctor can the bond service be enforced. The Petitioners urge that

they have no objection to being required to work during the period of

service under bond as Assistant Professors or, as the case may be, Super-

speciality Medical Officers for which the Recruitment Rules prescribe a

condition of passing the D.M. or M.Ch. However, the State Government is

now requiring super-specialized doctors with a D.M. or M.Ch. qualification

to discharge the period of bond by serving as Registrars or Senior

Residents. The post of Registrar or of Senior Resident is a post which is

held by a student who is pursuing a degree course, be it for a post-graduate

qualification or for a super-specialization. Requiring doctors, who have

successfully completed a course of super-specialized study to work as

Registrars or Senior Residents, would necessarily mar their future

prospects in that, at the end of the period of service, they would not be

treated at par with those doctors, who have worked either as Assistant

Professors or as Super-speciality Medical Officers. Apart from this, there

is a substantial disparity in the pay-scales. The pay-scales applicable to the

post of Assistant Professor or Super-speciality Medical Officer range

between Rs.58,000/- to Rs.62,000/- per month as opposed to the salaries

payable to the stipendiary post of Registrars or Senior Residents, which

vary between Rs.32,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. Moreover, requiring super-

specialized doctors to work as Registrars or Senior Residents would not

result in a proper utilization of their knowledge resource since these

stipendiary posts are meant for students, who are pursuing their degree

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

courses who have to report to and work under the supervision of an

Assistant Professor or a Super-speciality Medical Officer. A Registrar or a

Senior Resident cannot take independent decisions since that is a post

which is occupied by a student pursuing a degree course.

7. An affidavit-in-reply which was initially filed in these proceedings

by the State has now been supplemented by a further reply dated 5

November 2012. The latest affidavit filed by the State is comprehensive,

covering all aspects of the case. During the course of the submissions, the

learned Government Pleader has relied upon that affidavit. The affidavit

explains the rationale for the State Government to impose a condition of a

bond requiring doctors to render service for a stipulated period after

completion of their studies. The State, it has been stated, spends an amount

approximately of Rs.3.71 lakhs for every year of the M.B.B.S. degree

course for each student and a similar amount for the post-graduate M.D.

and M.S. courses and for the super-speciality D.M. and M.Ch. courses.

The duration of the M.B.B.S. course is four and half years whereas that of

the post-graduate and super-speciality courses is three years. As opposed

to this, a student studying for the M.B.B.S. and for the post-graduate and

Super-speciality Courses has to pay only an amount of Rs.40,000/- per year

towards tuition fees. Since the students do not reimburse the entire

expenditure, which is incurred by the State on their education and are

allowed to study in Government or Municipal medical colleges at a

subsidized rate, the Government has asserted that it is entitled to require

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

students to render some element of public service once they complete their

studies. The State Government has also relied upon Recruitment Rules for

appointment of Assistant Professors.

8. The affidavit-in-reply of the State Government provides details of

the exact position in regard to the allotment of students for completing the

mandatory service of one year pursuant to the bonds executed by super-

speciality students, who have passed in 2012. The position is as follows:

(i)The total number of students who have

passed the D.M./M.Ch. - 62;

(ii)Total number of posts available - 176;

(iii)The distribution of posts-

9. The posts of Registrar and Senior Resident are stipendiary posts for

which there are no recruitment rules. Appointments to the post of Assistant

Professor are governed by Recruitment Rules of 1986. The allotment of

posts in pursuance of the bonds executed by the students, who have passed

in 2012, is as follows:

              Post                                      Allotted







                                                          d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

Thus, 52 out of 62 students, who completed their super-speciality

courses, have been allotted posts as Assistant Professor, Registrar, Senior

Resident or as Super-speciality Medical Officer.

10. In 2011, a batch of Petitions was moved before this Court by doctors

who had challenged the decision of the State Government to post Super-

speciality, Broad-speciality and Post-Graduate Diploma holders on

assignments which were not commensurate with their professional

qualifications while enforcing bonds in terms of the Government

Resolution dated 8 February 2008. The Division Bench of this Court noted

in its decision that the statistics which were placed on the record of the

Court, indicated that postings are not available for all the Super-speciality /

Broad-speciality and Post-Graduate Diploma holders commensurate with

their qualifications or specializations to discharge the bond period of one

year. The Division Bench observed as follows:

"The number of Super Speciality and Broad Speciality doctors is likely to increase year after year. It is not in dispute that to acquire a Broad Speciality degree, a M.B.B.S. doctor has to spend three more years minimum and to acquire a Super Speciality degree, he has to spend another three years. Thus, a

Super Speciality degree doctor invests six years of his life after completing his internship. These Super Speciality / Broad Speciality skills are required to be used to serve the patients or to teach the students of undergraduate courses. Despite the best efforts made by the State Government in the present postings, it has not been able to appoint all the Super Speciality / Broad Speciality doctors in the post of Assistant Professor or Medical Officers with the Medical Colleges or the Hospitals attached thereto as per the specializations. At the same time, to post such doctors at the Rural Hospitals or Primary Health Centres would

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

not only be against their future interest but indeed a loss to the society in as much as they would not be able to use their Super Speciality / Broad Speciality skills at such postings. Just because

they have signed the bond, does not mean that they should be at the receiving end and put their future at stake. Having regard to

all these realities and to strike a balance between the obligations of the doctors, the requirements of the State Government and the needs of the hospitals across the State, it would be appropriate that the doctors with Super-Speciality / Broad Speciality are not

appointed / posted as Medical Officers with Rural Hospitals and Primary Health Centres."

The judgment of the Division Bench emphasizes the need to utilize the

skills of super-speciality doctors in posts which are commensurate with

their qualifications. The Court observed that merely because the doctors

have signed a bond would not justify the State in appointing them in

Primary Health Centres or Rural Hospitals in which the infrastructure was

not adequate to utilize their skills. The following direction was issued to

the State Government in regard to super-speciality doctors:

"(A) The bonded doctors with Super Speciality degrees (DM/M.Ch.) shall be appointed as Assistant Professors with the

Medical Colleges run by the State Government or the Municipal Corporations or as Medical Officers with the hospitals attached to such colleges. They shall not be appointed as Medical Officers with the Civil Hospitals, Rural Hospitals or Primary

Health Centres. However, they may be posted as Medical Officers with Super Speciality Hospitals either run by the State Government or the Municipal Corporations, so long as these hospitals have the concerned Super Speciality facilities / services. They shall not be assigned administrative duties."

In the event that adequate posts are not available for Super-speciality and

Broad-speciality bonded doctors, the State Government was directed to

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

consider creating supernumerary posts with medical colleges or at hospitals

attached to the medical colleges or super-speciality hospitals. The Court

directed that if it was not possible for the State Government to create

supernumerary posts, the bonded doctors would have to be released from

their bonds. The creation of such supernumerary posts was to be decided

within a period of one month from the date of declaration of the results of

the final examination. The State Government was also directed to create a

central agency which would register online, options furnished by the

doctors. Committees were directed to be constituted by the State

Government for completing the posting exercise.

11. Following the judgment of the Division Bench, the State

Government has by a Government Resolution dated 4 April 2012

constituted Committees for the allotment of doctors. Under the terms of

the Government Resolution, it has been stipulated that the allotment of

doctors would be merit based. An option has been furnished to local

bodies, who are desirous of securing the services of such doctors to

intimate the clear vacancies which are available. Doctors who have

completed super-speciality courses are to be appointed as Assistant

Professors or as Medical Officers in Super-speciality Hospitals. The

Government Resolution stipulates that doctors, who have completed super-

specialized degrees shall not be appointed in District General Hospitals,

Rural Hospitals or in Primary Health Centres. The expression 'Medical

Officers' has been defined to include Registrars, Senior Residents and

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

Tutors.

12. Now it is in this background that it would be necessary for the Court

to consider the submissions, which have been urged on behalf of the

Petitioners.

13. The first submission which requires to be considered is the broad

assertion that no requirement of a bond can constitutionally be imposed on

super-speciality doctors.

ig The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.

Pradeep Jain's case (supra) deals with the issue as to whether reservations

based on residence requirements within the State or on institutional

preference can be permissible in the case of Post-graduate and Super-

speciality courses. The Supreme Court held as follows:

"We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post- graduate courses such as M.S./M.D. and the like concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on

institutional preference. But, having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post-

graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

Medical Council in the same manner as directed by us in the case of admissions to the MBBS course. But, even in regard to admissions to the post-graduate course, we would direct that so

far as super specialties such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are concerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis

of institutional preference and admissions should be granted purely on merit on all-India basis."

14. The principle, therefore, is that admissions have to be granted purely

on merit on an all-India basis, and that, there cannot be any reservation at

all even on the basis of institutional preference in super-speciality courses.

The judgment in Pradeep Jain's case (supra) does not deal with the issue,

which has arisen before the Court here, which is whether doctors who have

embarked upon super-speciality courses, can lawfully be required to

furnish a bond under which they have to perform service with the

Government or Municipal Colleges or in the Defence Services for a

stipulated period of one year after they have completed their degrees. This

does not constitute either a reservation or a quota. The State Government

has explained on affidavit that while the fees that are charged to students

undergoing post-graduate as well as super-speciality courses are

Rs.40,000/- per year, this represents only a fraction of the total expenses on

medical education incurred for each such student every year. As a matter

of its social policy, the State Government does not charge fees

commensurate with the cost of medical education from students, who

pursue their M.B.B.S. degrees or post-graduation and super-specialization

in government and municipal medical colleges. Admissions to such

colleges are highly regarded because of the exposure and knowledge which

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

students gain in the course of their medical studies in those institutions.

The State spends a considerable amount of money in providing subsidized

medical education. As a condition attaching to the provision of subsidized

medical education, it is legitimately open to the State to assert that upon the

completion of their studies, such doctors should be required to render

public service either in government or municipal medical colleges or in the

defence services. The period, which is prescribed for the bond, is service

for a period of one year which is not disproportionate. After the

completion of service of one year, a super-specialized doctor is free for the

rest of his or her professional career to serve elsewhere in the country or

wherever. The condition which has been imposed by the State Government

of requiring service for a period of one year cannot be regarded as arbitrary

or unreasonable. Even as a matter of first principle, the State has a

legitimate interest in ensuring that while on the one hand it creates an

infrastructure necessary for the pursuit of medical studies especially at the

super-specialized level, students who benefit from that infrastructure and its

attendant resource base must contribute back to the community by

rendering public service. The importance of the wider social perspective

cannot be lost from purview. Patients, who come for treatment to state and

municipal run medical colleges are not necessarily confined only to the

State of Maharashtra and it is a matter of common knowledge that patients

are drawn from within as well as outside the State. Poverty in India does

not know geographical boundaries. We do not find any infirmity in the

policy decision of the State Government that students who complete their

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

medical degrees from government and municipal run medical colleges must

perform public service for a stipulated period in recognition of the fact that

the public exchequer bears a large burden of the expenditure incurred on

their medical education. Such a requirement is based on a valid rationale

and the classification meets the requirements of a reasonable classification

for the purposes of Article 14 of the Constitution.

15. The next aspect of the matter deals with the nature of the postings to

be given to the Super-speciality qualified doctors in pursuance of the

service under bond. A doctor who completes either the D.M. or M.Ch. is

required to put in long years of study. The M.B.B.S. degree consists of

four and half years. Thereafter there is an internship of one year. A post-

graduate qualification (M.D. Or M.S.) requires a further three years of

study. The super-specialized courses of D.M. and M.Ch. have a duration

of three years. In order to complete a super-specialization, a doctor,

therefore, has to prosecute medical studies for nearly twelve years inclusive

of internship. While we have upheld the requirement imposed by the State

of requiring such doctors to fulfill the condition of the bond requiring

stipulated public service for a period of one year, it is to our mind equally

important that the State must tap the knowledge, experience and

qualifications of super-specialized doctors in areas in which they have

attained proficiency. Doctors who have signed bonds cannot be treated as

bonded doctors. Recruitment Rules have been framed in 1986 by the State

of Maharashtra for the appointment of Lecturers, now re-designated as

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

Assistant Professors. These Rules are called the "Lecturers in Government

Medical Colleges, Medical Education and Research Service, Class II under

the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (Recruitment) Rules,

1986". The Schedule to the Rules indicates medical subjects and the

minimum qualifications required for appointment to the post of Lecturer in

the subject concerned. Serial Nos.24 to 30 and 37 to 39 deal with those

subjects for which a super-speciality qualification such as D.M. or M.Ch. is

required. These subjects include Cardiology, Neurology, Thorasic Surgery,

Neuro Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Paediatric Surgery, Urology, Gastro-

enterology, Nephrology and Clinical Haematology. The Petitioners

legitimately have no objection and can have no objection to being posted as

Assistant Professors / Lecturers. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-reply

filed by the State Government, it is stated that out of a total of 176 posts

available, 43 are of Assistant Professors and 28 of Speciality Medical

Officers. The qualifications for speciality Medical Officers require a super

specialization such as an M.Ch. or D.M.

16. The real bone of contention is the decision of the State Government

to post the super-specialized doctors as Registrars and Senior Residents.

We find merit in the grievance of the Petitioners for more than one reason.

The posts of Registrar and of Senior Resident are stipendiary posts which

are meant for students who are pursuing their studies. Consequently, there

are Registrars and Senior Residents who are pursuing their post-graduate

degrees (M.D. and M.S.) just as there are similar positions meant for

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

students pursuing a super-speciality course (D.M. and M.Ch.). Students

who are pursuing a course of super-specialized studies and who work as

Registrars and Senior Residents report to the Assistant Professors and are

subject to their supervision. Calling upon doctors who have duly qualified

in super-specialities such as D.M. and M.Ch. to go back and work as

Registrars and Senior Residents is to relegate them to working in posts

which are meant for students who are undergoing such courses. This in our

view would be thoroughly arbitrary and would in fact not do justice to the

qualifications which they have obtained after successfully prosecuting their

studies over a duration of three years. More significantly, this is liable to

mar the future prospects of the doctors concerned because after completing

the bond period of one year, they would not be treated at par with other

similarly placed doctors, who have discharged the service under the bond

either as Assistant Professors or as Super-Speciality Medical Officers. It is

also not in dispute before the Court that there is a substantial disparity in

pay-scales. The posts of Registrar and Senior Resident are stipendiary

posts for which the emoluments vary between Rs.32,000/- to Rs.35,000/-

which is substantially lower than the pay-scales attaching to the posts of

Assistant Professors or, as the case may be, Super-speciality Medical

Officers. But, to our mind, the principal grievance of the Petitioners which

merits acceptance is that after a doctor has been conferred with the Super-

speciality degree, it would be arbitrary and unfair to expect such a doctor,

during the period of bond, to serve in a position which is meant for a

student who is pursuing the course. Such a course of action would be

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

impermissible and would be violative of Article 14. Merely because a

doctor has signed a bond would not justify the State in extracting just any

kind of service. Such doctors constitute a relatively small fraction of the

overall number of medical doctors in the country and constitute an

important source of talent, which must be gainfully tapped. The issue is as

much one of preserving the dignity of the super-specialised professionals as

it is of protecting the societal interest in the utilization of their scarce talent

in areas for which they are qualified to render service to society.

17.

The State Government has informed the Court, during the course of

the hearing, that it is not possible for it to create supernumerary posts to

absorb all the super-specialized doctors. This is ultimately a matter of

policy involving budgetary and financial constraints and the Court would

not be justified in directing the Government to create supernumerary posts.

In the earlier judgment of this Court, the State Government was only called

upon to consider whether supernumerary posts should be created. An

alternate option which can be adopted by the State is to convert the vacant

posts of Registrars and Senior Residents to those of Assistant Professors

and speciality Medical Officers in order to ensure that the super-specialized

doctors, who have to serve the period of bond, can be allocated to posts,

which are commensurate with their qualifications. The reply, which has

been filed by the State indicates that already, 23 of such doctors have been

allotted against the post of Assistant Professor while 7 have been allotted to

the post of Super-speciality Medical Officers. Consequently, 30 out of the

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

62 doctors to whom the posts have to be allotted from the Summer 2012

Batch have already been absorbed for a period of one year as Assistant

Professors or as Super-Speciality Medical Officers. Only 22 doctors

remain. The Court has been informed that 4 students could not be given

allotments for want of availability of posts in the respective subjects

whereas one student refused to accept service in the subject of

Haematology. We would commend to the State Government the need to

find a solution along the lines that we have suggested above. While the

Court would not be justified in issuing a mandamus to the State

Government, we would expect the State Government to take into account

the need to promote public health, which would be achieved by providing

posts commensurate with the qualifications of the super-speciality doctors.

The learned Government Pleader assured the Court that the suggestion,

which has been noted above, would be duly considered and that a decision

would be taken within a period of two weeks from today.

18. In consequence, we dispose of the Petition in terms of the following

directions:

(i) We uphold the constitutional validity of the requirement imposed by

the State Government as incorporated in the bonds executed by the doctors

pursuing super-specialized medical courses to the effect that they shall be

required to render one year service, after the completion of their degrees, in

Government or Municipal run medical colleges on in the Defence services;

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

(ii) We direct that the posts to which the doctors, under bond, would be

allotted must be commensurate with the qualifications of the super-

specialized doctors. The posts in which the doctors are required to

discharge their service under bond must be posts for which the

qualifications for recruitment stipulate the holding of a D.M. or M.Ch.

degree. The posts of Registrar and Senior Resident, which are meant for

students who are undergoing the relevant degree course, shall not be

allotted to super-specialized students who have successfully completed

their D.M. or M.Ch. degree courses;

(iii) The State Government shall, within a period of two weeks from

today, in terms of the statement made before the Court, consider whether

the vacant posts of Registrar and Senior Resident should be converted to

those of Assistant Professors or, as the case may be, Super-Specialized

Medical Officers in order to enable allotments to be made to super-

specialized doctors who have to fulfill the conditions of their bonds;

(iv) On the request of the Government Pleader, we also clarify that since

the Court is informed that 16 posts of Super-speciality Medical Officers are

vacant respectively in the Super-speciality Hospitals at Nashik, Amravati

and Pimpri - Chinchwad, it would be open to the State Government to

make an allotment to these vacant posts in accordance with the procedure

which has been prescribed by the relevant Government Resolution. This

exercise shall now be completed within a period of three weeks from the

receipt of an authenticated copy of this order. The doctors to whom an

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

allotment has not been made by the State Government in the period

stipulated shall be discharged from their bonds and their papers shall be

returned by the Deans or, as the case may be, Competent Authorities

concerned;

(v) We direct that hereafter, the State Government will complete the

exercise of allotment well in time and that in any event, the procedure for

completing the allotment of doctors to the concerned posts would be

completed within a period of one month of the declaration of the results,

failing which, the doctors shall be discharged of their bond conditions; and

(vi) All allotments shall be merit based.

19. Before we part with this Judgment, we note that no argument was

advanced on behalf of the Petitioners as regards the quantum of the bond as

prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 28 May 2010 to be paid by

students in case they do not undergo service. We have therefore not gone

into that aspect. We also note the assurance given by the learned

Government Pleader that the Government will have a fresh look in respect

of clause 2(xii)(II) of the Government Resolution dated 4 April 2012 which

provides that if a candidate is appointed in a permanent post which is

covered by the bond service, the period of the service of the candidate shall

be treated to have commenced afresh from the date of joining the

permanent post.

d1-WP(L)1862&1863_12.sxw

20. The Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

Minal Parab