Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 674
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2022
Decided On : 22-07-2022
For the Appellant :Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Advocates
For the Respondent:Manish Kumar Saran, Shivam Singh, Nirvikar Singh, Harsh Choudhary, Advocates
The legal distinction between different categories of medical practitioners and the justifiability of the in-service quota for regularly recruited ESIC doctors.
Headnote:
Employees State Insurance Corporation - Reservation for Post-Graduate Courses - Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Section 59(B) - The court discussed the distinction between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors, the provision of reservation benefits, and the legal framework for institutional preference in post-graduate medical admissions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, junior resident doctors, sought inclusion in the reservation for post-graduate courses and extension of the in-service doctors' reservation to them. The respondent argued that there is a distinction between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there is a clear legal distinction between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors, and the in-service quota is justifiably made available to the latter category. The petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether junior resident doctors are eligible for inclusion in the reservation for post-graduate courses and entitled to the in-service quota.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is a legal distinction between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors, and the in-service quota is rightfully available to the latter category.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petition.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
The respondent -Employees State Insurance Corporation1['ESIC/ respondent-institute'] - is a statutory body created under the Employees State Insurance Act 19482['Act of 1948']. Act 18 of 2010 inserted Section 59(B) in the Act of 1948 which stipulates that the Corporation may establish medical colleges, nursing colleges, and training institutions for its employees to improving the quality of services provided under the Employees State Insurance cheme. The petitioners are junior residents who have completed their undergraduate medical course at medical institutions run by the ESIC. Undergraduate medical students pursuing their education in institutions conducted by the ESIC have to serve in the institutions as junior residents. The petitioners were required to serve a five year bond as junior residents.
2. The respondent-institutions recruit Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II3['IMO-II'] through a written examination followed by an interview. ESIC provides a fifty per cent reservation for 'in-service' doctors in the post-graduate seats available in medical institutions run by ESIC. While the post of IMO-II is included within the ambit of 'in-service doctors, the junior doctors are not. The respondent issued a notice on 10 November 2021 inviting applications from eligible 'in-service doctors of ESI Medical colleges. The petitioners made representations on 11 February 2022, 4 March 2022, and 25 April 2022 to the respondent-institution seeking to be considered in the 'in-service quota for DNB courses. Since there was no response from the respondent-institution, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. The petitioners have sought the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction to Respondents to declare that the Petitioners/Junior Resident Doctors are eligible 'in-service' doctors of ESIC/ESIS for the purposes of inclusion in reservation for PG courses.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to the Respondents to extend the 50% 'in-service' doctors reservation for PG courses to the Junior Resident Doctors serving in ESIC/ESIS institutions."
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that that junior resident doctors and persons working as IMO-II possess the same qualifications, entitlements, duties, and responsibilities. However, while reservation in postgraduate education is provided to the latter in the 'in-service' category, it is not provided to the former.
4. The Deputy Medical Commissioner (Medical Education) has filed an affidavit before this Court on behalf of the respondent explaining the distinction between the junior resident doctors, such as the petitioners, and the regular medical officers who are recruited by the ESIC. The affidavit states as follows:
(i) Candidates who pursue their undergraduate degree courses in these colleges are required to execute a bond to serve the ESIC hospitals for a stipulated period. Until 2017, the period of the bond was five years, after which it was reduced to three years.
(ii) By a Memorandum dated 28 July 2020, the period of the bond was reduced to one year for undergraduate MBBS/BDS students at the ESIC medical and dental colleges. Para 2 of the Memorandum, inter alia, contains the following stipulation:
"2. The reduction in Bond duration and Bond amount would be prospective per-se, but in the following manner:
2.1 The benefit of reduced Bond period & Bond amount in lieu, would also be extended to (i) all existing students (MBBS/BDS); (ii) Fresh UG (MBBS/BDS) pass-outs; and (ii) UG (MBBS/BDS) pass-outs already serving ESIC under Bond.
2.2 In case of pass-outs already serving under Bond, if the length of service rendered is in excess of 01 year, they may be relieved without payment to ESIC for left over Bond period."
(iii) The petitioners completed their one year compulsory bond period between 2019 and 2020. Though they were not unde
