No SC Relief to Maharashtra MBBS Medicos who challenged Compulsory Bond Service conditions

Published On 2022-08-09 10:45 GMT   |   Update On 2022-08-09 10:45 GMT

New Delhi: Directing the petitioners to approach the High Court to seek remedy, the Supreme Court on Monday denied entertaining a plea seeking quashing of the compulsory bond conditions for the MBBS students admitted in 2011 and 2013, imposed by the Maharashtra Government.Admitted in the All-India Quota seats, on the basis of the merit secured in All India Preliminary Medical Test (AIPMT),...

Login or Register to read the full article

New Delhi: Directing the petitioners to approach the High Court to seek remedy, the Supreme Court on Monday denied entertaining a plea seeking quashing of the compulsory bond conditions for the MBBS students admitted in 2011 and 2013, imposed by the Maharashtra Government.

Admitted in the All-India Quota seats, on the basis of the merit secured in All India Preliminary Medical Test (AIPMT), these students had prayed for quashing the bond terms as they argued that the conditions had violated the Information Bulletin for Counselling issued by Directorate General of Health Sciences.

However, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna had observed that the bond conditions had been imposed by the State of Maharashtra and the students had been pursuing their under-graduate courses in Maharashtra. Therefore, the court thought it to be appropriate that the petitioners approach the Bombay High Court seeking remedy against their grievances.

The bench noted, "Since the petitioners have an efficacious remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to entertain these proceedings under Article 32. The petitioners would be at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law."

Also Read: Bond Service Allotment: DMER Maharashtra adds 20 more seats for MD, MS medicos

Claiming that the compulsory bond conditions imposed on the petitioners for mandatorily serving the State of Maharashtra violated the Information Bulletin for Counselling issued by DGHS back in 2011 and 2013, the petitioners referred to Para 5 of the Information Bulletin.

As per the latest media report by Live Law, the concerned Para 5 allegedly contemplated that the bond conditions prevalent in a State would not bind the candidates admitted under the 15% All-India Quota seats. Similar opinion had been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand S. Biji v. State of Kerala. 

In the plea, the students claimed that violating the provisions of the Information Bulletin, the State had forced the petitioners for signing the compulsory bonds. However, the plea stated that at that time, the State had made it clear to the petitioners that they would not have to serve the government or any local hospital or any local authority for a minimum period of one year or they would not be liable to pay a fine in case of forfeiture. The petitioners claimed that this was an additional eligibility criteria set out by the Maharashtra Government.

They claimed that when they approached the Director of Maharashtra Directorate of Medical Education and Research and requested them to release the original documents submitted by them, the State Government notified on 25.11.2017 that the one-year rural service after completing MBBS course would be mandatory from the year 2018-2019.

Therefore the petitioners, who have by now completed their respective PG courses, argued that the bond conditions for serving the State for one year after completing their medical PG courses, is wholly arbitrary.

To view the order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bond-service-supreme-court-182914.pdf

Also Read: Do not retain degrees of PG Medicos, let council take appropriate action: TN Medical Council tells State Govt

Tags:    
Advertisement
Article Source : with inputs from Live Law

Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News