The High Court bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor made this observation while considering the plea by a doctor, who challenged Clause 3.1 mentioned in the letter dated 25.06.2019, which was also included in the 2025 prospectus.
Although the bench agreed with the petitioner's opinion that the ultimate objective was to equip the department with better doctors, it denied interfering with the judgment noting that "It otherwise remains in the realm of policy of the state to require a minimum length or service and as we find that such policy cannot be termed to be irrational, we would not be justified in interfering with it only because a different view could be taken in the matter."
The bench was adjudicating the legal question of whether insistence on the part of the State to serve for one year before being allowed to pursue PG course had any objective or was it arbitrary.
The petitioner joined the medical department of the Punjab Government after having passed the MBBS course. Consequently, she was offered a substantive appointment. Having worked for a month, the Petitioner applied for leave to pursue a PG medical course. However, she was not permitted to do so in view of Clause 3.1 of the circular dated June 25, 2019, which required the PCMS doctors to have completed one year of service for joining the PG course in the non-incentive category.
It was argued by the petitioner's counsel that there was no rationale furnished by the State for insisting upon the candidate to complete one year of service before joining a PG course, in as much as the object of the State policy was to provide more qualified doctors in the service of PCMS cadre in the State.
Further, it was contended that since the admission of the petitioner was in the non-incentive category, she would not stand to gain anything, as she would not be receiving salary etc. while pursuing post graduation.
The counsel for the petitioner also contended that the policy was otherwise intended to incentivise higher qualification for the MBBS doctors in the employment of the State and therefore, the condition of one-year minimum service was arbitrary as it was neither any intelligible differentia nor any objective to achieve.
On the other hand, the State Government submitted that the minimum working of one year had been introduced in the policy so that the doctors served for some time in the PCMS cadre before being allowed to take up higher studies. It was further contended by the State that the policy had been introduced, noticing that many of such doctors remain in employment only for a few days/weeks/months and take up the PG course for the next three years.
Taking note of the submissions, the HC bench observed that the policy required to be examined from a broader perspective. It noted that the policy was introduced by Government Order dated 25.06.2019 and it was formulated to advance a definite purpose i.e. to ensure that highly qualified doctors were available in the PCMS cadre.
"It is for the said purpose that the policy contemplates placing of doctors in one of the categories i.e. incentive category and non-incentive category. In the incentive category, the doctors continue to draw salary while pursuing the PG course, whereas in non-incentive category salary is not paid. In the incentive category marks are also given for working in rural areas. In the present case the petitioner falls in the non-incentive category. No marks have been awarded in this category as the candidate has not worked in a rural area. The doctor in this category is not entitled to any salary etc. and the only benefit which is available is to have lien on the post and later receive benefits in the form of seniority and other service benefits on account of continuity in job," observed the HC bench.
The court noted that though in the non-incentive category, the doctor does not get salary but other benefits in the nature of lien, continuity of service and seniority etc. are extended to such doctors.
"Once that be so, the State would be justified in requiring such candidate to serve in the cadre for at least a year before the candidate is allowed to take up higher studies. In case such a stipulation is not made then a doctor in PCMS cadre can avail of service benefits during the three year PG course even if he has worked for a few days or weeks. In this case the petitioner has only worked for a month," observed the HC bench.
Accordingly, it upheld the mandatory 1-year service rule for PCMS doctors and refused to interfere with the State's policy.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/dr-janvi-vs-state-of-pujab-313505.pdf
Also Read: NEET PG 2025: BFUHS issues notice on NOC for PCMS in-service candidates, check details
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.