No Relief to ESIC Junior Doctors: SC says NO to 50 percent In-Service Quota for PG Courses
New Delhi: Referring to the clear distinction in law between the junior resident doctors and regularly recruited doctors of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), the Supreme Court on Friday clarified that Junior Resident Doctors serving in ESIC hospitals as part of their bond period cannot avail the benefit of 50% in-service reservation for admission to Postgraduate medical courses.
Therefore, dismissing the plea by Junior Resident Doctors seeking in-service reservation, the top court bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was quoted observing by Live Law, "there is a clear distinction in law between the junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors and the in-service quota is therefore, only made available to the latter category. The petitioners cannot claim parity with insurance medical officers, in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the petition."
The top court bench was considering a plea doctors graduated from institutes run by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), who sought 50 percent in-service reservation for admission into PG medical courses. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that apart from reservation benefits, these Junior Resident Doctors belonging to such ESIC institutes had also prayed for being declared as "in-service" doctors of ESIC/ESIS for being able to avail the reservation benefits.
The doctors in their plea referred to the policy of ESIC and pointed out that only the doctors who are recruited by ESIC (IMO-II) and are working in the ESIC institutes are eligible for availing the 50% reservation for PG medical admissions in the ESIC hospitals.
They also stated how the Junior Resident Doctors have executed a bond of serving the ESIC Hospitals as in-service candidates for a period of five years with ESIC.
"Qualifications, entitlements, duties and responsibilities as well as pay scale of junior resident doctors and IMO-II are one and the same. Both officials are at par," the doctors had contended in their plea.
The plea had further stated, "though Petitioners are similarly placed junior resident doctors like IMO- II but they are not held to be eligible for said 50% quota of ESIC Hospitals. Thus the policy of ESIC is arbitrary and discriminatory which violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that ESIC has been granting benefit of reservation to one set of in service candidates and denying said benefit to another set of in service candidates, when both are at par and similarly placed."
During the last hearing on June 24, the top court bench had took note of the change in the bond-service policy for the MBBS graduates of ESIC-run institutes. It had asked the counsel for ESIC to confirm if the bond tenure had been reduced from 5 years to 1 year.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, the counsel for ESIC, Advocate Manish Kumar filed an affidavit before the top court bench and explained the distinction between the junior resident doctors and the regular medical officers recruited by ESIC. It was contended that while regular ESIC doctors, who are government by ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959, can avail the in-service quota, the same is not available for the Junior resident doctors, who do not come under the purview of the aforementioned Regulations.
ESIC in its affidavit pointed out that such Junior Residents are government by ESIC residency scheme that includes other particulars and entitlements.
Referring to the revised scheme, the affidavit mentioned that the revised scheme had been issued on November 24, 2020 on the basis of a memorandum on July 20, 2020.
While the bond period for such doctors was 5 years until 2017, it was later reduced to 3 years and on July 20, 2020, it was revised once again and the bond period became for one year only for the UG MBBS and BDS students at the ESIC Medical and Dental Colleges, clarified the affidavit.
In this case, the petitioners had completed their one year compulsory bond period in 2019 and 2020. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though there was no compulsion, the petitioners had continued to serve by their own. The counsel argued that while ESIC was granting reservation benefits one set of in-service candidates, the facility was being denied to another set of doctors.
However, after considering the submissions, the top court bench dismissed the plea and noted, "The reduction in bond period was brought about in July, 2020, was also extended to all existing students, as well as undergraduate (MBBS/BDS pass outs serving the ESIC hospital). Hence, there is a clear distinction in law between the junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors and the in-service quota is therefore, only made available to the latter category. The petitioners cannot claim parity with insurance medical officers, in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the petition."
