Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. MUKHERJI, J.
Dr. Naval Patel and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 18035 (W) of 2016 With C.A.N. No. 10395 of 2016.
Decided on : 03-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Pratik Dhar, Mr. L. Chatterjee, Mr. S. Sarkar and Mr. D. Ghorai, Advocates.
For the MCI :Mr. Sougata Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the State :Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr. Prithu Dudhoria and Mr. Avra Majumder, Advocates.
For the UOI :Mr. Apurbo Ghosh, Advocate.
For the WBUHS:Mr. Supratik Roy, Advocate.
The court established that notifications imposing compulsory service in rural areas for a specified period of time on qualified doctors obtaining post graduate degrees or diplomas must be reasonable and not arbitrary. It also clarified that administrative orders must not violate fundamental rights and should be in compliance with the Constitution.
Headnote:
MBBS - Medical Education - Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(2), Article 13(3) - The court discussed the validity of notifications issued by the State Government imposing compulsory service in rural areas for a specified period of time on qualified doctors obtaining post graduate degrees or diplomas. The court held that the notifications were administrative orders and not law within the meaning of the Constitution. It found that the condition to render three years' government service or pay a penalty was unreasonable and arbitrary. The court allowed candidates to exit from government service by paying the penalty in five equal instalments over a period of five years. The notification imposing three years' service was set aside, and candidates were given the option to avail of subsequent notifications. The court also directed the release of all documents of the petitioners held by the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, qualified doctors with MBBS degrees, challenged notifications by the State Government imposing compulsory service in rural areas for a specified period of time on qualified doctors obtaining post graduate degrees or diplomas. The petitioners argued that the notifications were arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notifications were administrative orders and not law within the meaning of the Constitution. It held that the condition to render three years' government service or pay a penalty was unreasonable and arbitrary. The court allowed candidates to exit from government service by paying the penalty in five equal instalments over a period of five years. The notification imposing three years' service was set aside, and candidates were given the option to avail of subsequent notifications. The court also directed the release of all documents of the petitioners held by the State Government.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of notifications imposing compulsory service in rural areas for a specified period of time on qualified doctors obtaining post graduate degrees or diplomas. The court also considered the reasonableness of the penalty for non-compliance with the service requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notifications were administrative orders and not law within the meaning of the Constitution. It found that the condition to render three years' government service or pay a penalty was unreasonable and arbitrary. The court allowed candidates to exit from government service by paying the penalty in five equal instalments over a period of five years. The notification imposing three years' service was set aside, and candidates were given the option to avail of subsequent notifications.
Final Decision: The court allowed candidates to exit from government service by paying the penalty in five equal instalments over a period of five years. The notification imposing three years' service was set aside, and candidates were given the option to avail of subsequent notifications. The court also directed the release of all documents of the petitioners held by the State Government.
I.P. Mukerji, J.
There are 139 petitioners. All of them are qualified doctors. Each of them has the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) granted by a State University. The respective State Medical Councils have registered them and issued to each of them a certificate of registration.
2. In each of the states except Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh the Government Medical Teaching Institutes conducting the MD, MS degree and PG diploma courses had to keep 50% seats for students who qualified in an All India Entrance Examination for these courses. These All India Entrance Examinations are known as the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE) and the All India Post Graduate Dental Entrance Examination (AIPGDEE).
3. The National Board of Examinations (NBE) was established, as an autonomous body by the Government of India in 1975. The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare entrusted this Board with the responsibility to conduct the All India post graduate medical entrance examination (AIPGMEE) an entrance examination.
4. The balance 50% seats in these courses can be filled up by the State, conducting its own examination or on the basis of results of AIPGMEE or AIPGDEE.
5. Our State Government conducts a separate examination for filling up 50% of the Post Graduate Medical and Dental seats.
6. On 24th October, 2013 the Board published an advertisement for the State Entrance Examination for 2014 (AIPGMEE-2014). It was said therein that between 24th October, 2013 and 13th November, 2013 the information bulletin cum examination fee voucher would be available at the designated branches of AXIS Bank. Between 26th October and 13th November 2013 online registration would take place. Between 25th November and 6th December, 2013 the entrance examination would be held. On 31st January, 2014 the results would be declared.
7. The petitioners qualified in the entrance examination.
8. The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India had conducted the counselling process for each of the writ petitioners. Several rounds took place. Thereafter, each of the writ petitioners was allotted a medical teaching institute as specified in paragraph-14 of the petition. Accordingly, the petitioners took admission into these institutions.
9. The state government made a notification on 31st July, 2013. It was issued by the Joint Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare. It said that, to serve the rural areas doctors after completing their Post Graduate and Post Doctoral Education in State Medical Teaching Institutions in West Bengal were to work in multi speciality/super speciality hospitals secondary and tertiary level hospitals in this state for a period of one year. A bond had to be executed that in breach of this condition a candidate would have to pay a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs to the government. It would be applicable for all post doctoral courses in State Medical Teaching Institutions from the academic session 2013-2014 and post graduate courses in State Medical Teaching Institutions from the succeeding academic session 2014-2015 onwards.
10. By the notification dated 10th June, 2014 the mandatory service period was increased to three years after completion of the post doctoral course and two years after completion of the PG Diploma course. In default penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs per year was payable aggregating to Rs. 30 lakhs.
11. Two subsequent notifications dated 26th July, 2016 and 10th august, 2016 were made by the state government basically to implement its earlier notifications.
12. The petitioners say that this stipulation was attached to the information booklet meant for the State quota candidates.
13. As a result the petitioner nos. 1 and 94 to 139 are required to serve the government for one year, whereas the petitioner nos. 2 to 10 and 49 to 53 have been asked to serve the government for two yea
