Rejected: DM, MCh Doctors plea seeking to quash compulsory bond service

Further, the clause dealing with "Liquidated Damages and Execution of Bond" mentions;

"Clause VI(b): He/She shall serve RCC TVM/Government of Kerala for a continuous period of not less than one year immediately after the completion of the course without break. Terms and conditions including remuneration will be decided by RCC TVM/Government of Kerala. If the candidate violates the terms of the bond, it will be construed as Professional Misconduct and the fact reported to the T.C. Medical Council for suitable action including cancellation of Registration by the Council and a sum of Rs.1 Crores (Rupees One Crore only) (in addition to the stipend/salary drawn during the period of the course and the amount spent by Government for their studies with interest as fixed by Government) will be levied as liquidated damages from those who fail to do the service as stipulated."

The PG medicos alleged that insistence on the bond period after levying a huge amount of fees from the petitioners are illegal.

Advocate Philip Mathews learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in respect of their courses, the Government has not extended any concessional or subsidized fees to the petitioners. The fees in RCC is Rs 3,50,000/- per annum, whereas the fees in other Government Medical Colleges in Kerala are Rs 1,25,000/-. Therefore, forcing the petitioners to execute a bond of one-year is illegal and unjustified.

The petitioner contended;

"Insistence on the bond period after levying a huge amount of fees from the petitioners is illegal and is against Article 23 of the Constitution of India which prohibits forced labor in any form. The insistence goes against Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 also. There is no rationale for the insistence of bond after accepting huge fees from the petitioners."

The petitioners further pointed out that they are receiving stipend now while undergoing postgraduate studies. However, during the compulsory service, the monthly salary that will be paid to them will be less than the stipend which they are being paid now. This is grossly arbitrary and discriminatory.

In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners have any grievance relating to lesser salary that will be paid to them during the period of their bonded service in comparison to the stipend they are in receipt now, they will be at liberty to take up the matter before the appropriate authorities in accordance with law.