MBBS, PG Medical, SS doctors will have to do one year service in Karnataka: HC denies any relief to doctors
BENGALURU: Dismissing the plea challenging the validity of Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 and Rules of 2015; the Karnataka High Court has held that the doctors will have mandatorily render salaried public service for 1 year, in government health institutes.
The petitioners in the case were medical students who are either pursuing MBBS, PG Medical (MD, MS) to super speciality (DM, MCh) courses.
They assailed the act and rules mainly on the grounds of legislative competence, discrimination, manifest arbitrariness, unworkability & roportionality, all falling under Article 14, unreasonable infringement of Fundamental Right to profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), breach of bar of ex post facto penal law enacted in Article 20(1), intrusion of Right to Privacy in-built collectively inter alia in Articles 14, 19 & 21, prohibition of forced labour contained in Article 23, interference with Rights of Religious Minorities bestowed under Article 30, arbitrary penalty, excessive delegation and of prospective operation of the Act.
According to the policy, the doctors, during the compulsory service period, are given the designations as 'Junior Resident', 'Senior Resident' and 'Senior Specialist' and these candidates have temporary registration for practising medicine.
Read Also: Govt spends Rs 10 Crore in making 1 Doctor: Yogi Adityanath justifies 2 year Bond Service
After going through the act in question and the submissions made during the hearing, the HC bench of justice Krishna Dixit passed the order upholding the validity of the rules and the act.
The court made the following observations:
On the contention of the petitioner medicos based on Compulsory service and vinculum juris of employer – employee, the court observed
"Since the State is employing these candidates in public service for a certain period, on a certain monthly remuneration ( regardless of it's nomenclature) and with a certain designation, there are all the indicia of public employment. Compulsory employment is also not unknown to Service Jurisprudence; in all civilized jurisdictions, compulsory defence services, do obtain; even the debates of Dr.Ambedkar and others in the Constituent Assembly mention about this vide CAD Vol.VII, 3rd December, 1948; there is nothing in service jurisprudence that spurns at employer-employee relationship even in a compulsive engagement of services, especially when Article 23(2) of the Constitution itself sanctions "imposing compulsory service for public purposes."
The court further struck down the arguments on Impugned Act vs. Right to Profession and privacy where it observed:
"No Fundamental Rights are absolute and they admit as of necessity, reasonable restriction & regulation in larger public interest; none of the provisions of the impugned Act breaches the right to practise; on the contrary, the Act provides for medical practice soon after the course is complete, that too with designation, dignity & remuneration and for a short period of one year only; all this is in public interest."
… it is difficult to countenance petitioners‟ argument that the impugned Act is constitutionally invalid, especially when State‟s power to compel citizens to render public service is sanctioned under Article 23(1) of the Constitution.
The court noted :
…there is a lot of force in the contention of the petitioners that all they had already joined the medical courses before the impugned law was conceived in or enacted; many of them have organized the financial and other resources for prosecuting the course of studies keeping in view that they would come out of the campus and enter the free market soon after accomplishment of the course as prescribed by the MCI Regulations; many of them might have had the idea of prosecuting higher studies with the legal regime that obtained prior to enactment of the impugned Act; may be there are cases that metaphorically fit into 'beg, borrow & steal' for gaining entry to the campus; there is also force in the argument that to some extent, the impugned Act has affected their 'choice' post facto; had they known that such a law was in the offing, they would have taken an 'informed decision' as to whether they should have entered medical course or not. Thus, the application of the Act to all such candidates would mete out enormous injustice and hardship and all this justifies their submission that the impugned Act is and be construed as being prospective in operation, than to risk its validity on the ground of 'manifest arbitrariness', as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
Ultimately, disposing off the petitions, the HC upheld the act and the rules:
The challenge to the validity of Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 as amended by the Karnataka Act No.35 of 2017, and to the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Course Rules 2015, fails
The impugned Act and the Rules being prospective in operation do not apply to the candidates who had already been admitted to the respective medical courses, i.e., Graduation, Post-Graduation or Super Specialty courses before 24.07.2015 i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Act No.26 of 2015 came into force;
In view of the aforesaid observations, the HC then passed the following directives:
(c) The Government of Karnataka is directed to lay down guidelines within two months:
(i) for regulating the exercise of discretion in determining the penalty amount ranging from minimum of Rs.15 lakh to the maximum of Rs.30 lakh, as provided u/s.6 of the Act, and for the payment of the fine amount in just & reasonable installments, with current banking rate of interest on such delayed payment, and,
(ii) for deferring the compulsory service for a short period or for providing for the split of service period in cases of genuine difficulty not arising from the fault of the candidates, subject to reasonable riders so that the hardship is mitigated, on proof of reasonable grounds, and,
(d) The Government of Karnataka shall within two months, constitute a High Level Committee/Grievance Redressal Cell for addressing the complaints of aggrieved candidates in the matter of imposition of fine, working conditions, infrastructural facilities, requirement of residence, commutation or the like.
