Uniform Bond Policy: States need not give original documents to NEET SS candidates for college admission, says MCC

New Delhi: Referring to the need for a uniform bond policy for doctors throughout India, the Madras High Court recently directed DGHS to constitute a mechanism so that the candidates who have secured admission in Government Institutions though in other States will also be entitled to the benefit of the dispensation of the bank guarantee too.

Adding that 'let such a mechanism be put in place forthwith to enable such reciprocity,' the bench opined that such an inter-state mechanism would enable candidates to avail opportunities in other States while still being bound to return to the Home State to serve.

In compliance of the Court's order, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) of the Directorate General of Health Sciences (DGHS) has recently directed that "it is advised that the State DME's should not necessarily enforce the requirement of the bond at the time of admission to courses such as Super Speciality and Post-Graduate for such in-service candidates who are already serving bond in their state also the state which is in possession of the original documents shall need not send the same to the government college wherein the candidate got admission."

The pleas before the Madras High Court had been filed after the Tamil Nadu Government had issued a G.O. in 2020 and restricted the submission of bank guarantee to Super Speciality non service aspirants within the state of Tamil Nadu selected through NEET All India quota to other states or private institutions or DrNB (Doctorate of National Board).This was clarified by the Government again in 2022.

The G.O. dealt with a condition imposed by the State upon the request of students who had sought return of their certificates for continuance of higher speciality/fellowship course. Apart from seeking quash the G.O, the petitions also sought a direction upon the medical colleges in Tamil Nadu to return the original certificates to the petitioner doctors on extension of surety bond already executed by the petitioner in the custody of the colleges without submission of the Bank Guarantee, in order to produce the same for pursuing Super Specialty course.

During the hearing of the plea, the State Government, on the other hand, pointed out that more often than not, the Non-service post graduate students do not comply with the service conditions imposed on them and breach the bond conditions and therefore, the State had decided to obtain bank guarantees from candidates aspiring for higher studies.

After issuance of G.O.185 dated 13.04.2020, the State considered the position of those students who continue to study in the State of Tamil Nadu even for post graduate/super speciality courses and since the State continues to retain control, as the students are continuing their education in Government colleges within the State, the rigour of G.O.185 was relaxed to this limited extent.

Referring to the Supreme Court order in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents & Others V. Union of India and others, the HC bench noted that the challenge in that case related to compulsory bonds to be executed for admission to post graduate medical courses and super speciality courses. The petitioner association had sought a mandamus quashing such compulsory bond conditions as imposed in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telengana and West Bengal.

The apex court in that case had noted how post graduate students do not serve the state after completion of their courses and had held that such policy that permitted states to impose reasonable restrictions upon State beneficiary students was permitted.

In that case, the top court while taking note of the rigour imposed by the States and the need for uniformity in the matter relating to compulsory bonds, had also concluded that Union Government and MCI should formulate a uniform policy regarding compulsory service. Even though the directions had been given by the Apex Court back in 2019, nothing has been done in this regard yet, noted the HC bench. This has resulted in a situation where the disparity in bond conditions is continuing.

Taking note of the distinction between the students of the Government and private institutes, the HC bench noted, "In such an event, it becomes imperative for the State to, as rightly contended by them, retain some measure/degree of control upon the students, as in the alternative, there is every possibility that the doctors would continue to greener pastures without feeling the need to return to the State to serve."

Referring to the G.O. the bench observed, "Admittedly, the machinery for enforcement of the bond conditions is not just poor but non-existent. It is, in such a situation that the State has created an exemption from G.O.185 dated 13.04.2020 in permitting continuance of original bond conditions in the cases of those students who continue their studies in the State of Tamil Nadu."

However, referring to the case of the students of private institutes, the bench noted, "the rigour of the Government Order continues in the cases of those students who have secured admission outside the State or in private institutions within the State. In such cases, the requirement of a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) is insisted upon. Learned single Judges of this Court have considered the pleas of candidates that the condition of bank guarantee is onerous. Such consideration was prior to issuance of clarification dated 10.02.2022."

At this outset, the bench noted that ultimately the petitioners had been directed to furnish guarantees amounting less than original liabilities and noted, "I am of the view that the primary demarcation made under impugned Government Orders read with clarification dated 10.02.2022 has some basis."

The bench also noted that the State has revealed its inclination to engage in negotiation of the appropriate amount of bank guarantee to be executed by the candidate opting for study in private institutions, both within and without the State.

Therefore, the bench directed the Director of Medical Education , to engage in a deliberation of the amount of bank guarantee to be furnished by these petitioners, bearing in mind orders passed in W.P.Nos.14906 of 2020, 16849 of 2020 and 16842 of 2020 as aforesaid and decide the same within 24 hours.

"The process of admission in the seats secured by these candidates will be subject to this deliberation. It is made clear that the candidates in question are bound by all conditions under G.O.185 dated 13.04.2020, including the furnishing of the bank guarantee, except for the quantification of the bank guarantee to be furnished," the bench noted.

The Madras High Court bench also referred to the candidates who are pursuing super specialty courses in other parts of the Country and noted, "As regards those candidates who have secured admission in Government Institutions in other parts of the Country, I am of the considered and categoric view that the benefit of waiver of bank guarantee extended by the State of Tamil Nadu to students studying in Tamil Nadu, must be extended to those candidates as well. Learned counsel for the respondents expresses some reservations on this score, pointing out the absence of control that they hold in such matters."

Opining that there should be a balance in this whole process, the bench noted, "Let us bear in mind that we are one unified Country and the common aim of all State Governments is to improve the access of underprivileged in their States to health care. A balance has to achieved as between the aforesaid object and the interests of the Doctors upon whom the condition of bank guarantee is imposed."

Again referring to the Supreme Court directions of setting up a uniform bond policy, the bench observed, "Moreover, the direction of the Hon'ble Court in the case of the Association (supra) is that a uniform set of conditions must be customised that would operate across all the States. To my mind, there is a cue to be taken from this suggestion which is that some reciprocity must be devised by States to enable quality medical education pan India while at the same time, availing the benefit of the doctors who have been the beneficiaries of such training."

"There is no such mechanism available as of now to provide for such reciprocity. However, bearing mind the compulsions of the States, on the one hand, and students, on the other, a harmonious balance must be struck and the States governments must reciprocally assist each other in this respect," further read the order.

Noting that the NEET prospectus asks students to submit hard copy of documents the bench opined that this is done to get over the difficulties over the breach of bond conditions and noted, "This condition has not however, conceived of the certificates being held securely by the States themselves, albeit other States, by putting in place an inter-State mechanism that would enable candidates to avail opportunities in other States while still being bound to return to the Home State to serve. That is, and to clarify, the Home State must retain lien over the certificates of the candidates in question."

"In addition, what is required is a mechanism whereby the certificates of a Student from Tamil Nadu who has obtained admission to a Government college in Karnataka, for example, may be securely held, so as to satisfy the prospectus conditions, the requirements of the admitting college (in Karnataka) and the Home State (Tamil Nadu)," the court held.

"Had such a mechanism been in place, which I believe will be in the best interests of all stakeholders in the system, candidates who have secured admission in Government Institutions though in other States will also be entitled to the benefit of dispensation of the bank guarantee too. Let such a mechanism be put in place forthwith to enable such reciprocity," it added.

Such directions were issued by the HC bench while suo motu impleading the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Union Health Ministry as 5th respondent.

In compliance of the order of the High Court, the MCC clarified that "in Post-Graduate and Super Speciality Courses the serving of bonds is a matter decided by the Department of Medical Education of the respective state."

Referring to the petitions before the Madras High Court, MCC mentioned, "In the above mentioned Writ Petitions the Hon'ble court was of the suggestion that there should be uniform bond policy throughout the country though the basis of imposition was however the same to retain some degree of control over the candidates/doctors to ensure that the candidates/doctors serve the state for a given period of time."

"Hence in compliance of the order dated 12.04.2022 it is advised that the State DME's should not necessarily enforce the requirement of the bond at the time of admission to courses such as Super Speciality and Post-Graduate for such in-service candidates who are already serving bond in their state also the state which is in possession of the original documents shall need not send the same to the government college wherein the candidate got admission," read the MCC notice.

"Also the DME can issue a bonafide certificate to the candidate that they are holding the original documents of the candidate so that the candidate may take admission into allotted college," it added.

To view the official notice click on the following link:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/advisory-for-states-against-bond-in-super-special-174358.pdf

Also Read: Cabinet Minister Gadkari writes to Health Minister demanding Uniform Bond Policy for doctors