SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P.B. BALAJI, JJ.
K. Ambika – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 2583, 1922, 1924 of 2024, C.M.P. Nos. 18571, 18573, 17298, 17300, 13820, 13829 of 2024
Decided On : 20-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Suhrith Parthasarathy
For the Respondent: N. Sneha

Executing bonds for post-graduate medical service requires adherence to conditions specified without exceptions for pandemic duties, reaffirming contractual obligations under Article 19(1)(g).

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) - Bond conditions - Non-Service Post Graduates executing bonds to serve in Government Hospitals cannot seek reduction of bond period on the basis of Covid services provided, as the bond explicitly binds them to serve a specified duration without contingencies related to Covid service being recognized. Compulsory service bonds for medical graduates, once executed, must be adhered to under current law and previous court decisions underscoring the validity of such bonds. (Paras 10 to 17)

(B) Judicial review - Scope - Court must not interfere in matters unless the exercise of power by the government is shown to be arbitrary or capricious. (Paras 12 and 14)

Facts of the case:
The Writ Appeals were filed against orders dismissing petitions for reducing bond service duration after completion of post-graduation course amid Covid duty service. The petitioner, a Doctor, contended that her Covid service should count as part of bond service, but the learned Judge dismissed her claims.

Findings of Court:
The bond conditions are binding and were duly executed; thus, requests for reduction of bond period were without basis.

Issues: Whether service rendered during the Covid-19 pandemic can count towards fulfilling the bond service requirement? Is the demand for adherence to bond conditions a violation of constitutional rights?

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the validity of the bond conditions and ruled that there were no grounds for amending them based on the service provided during the pandemic, reinforcing that obligations set forth in contracts must be honored unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Result: Writ Appeals dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to comply with bond service requirements.

Table of Content
1. challenge to prior judgments on petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the appellant's service during covid. (Para 3)
3. respondents argue bond obligations must be honored. (Para 4)
4. appellants claim rights violation regarding bond service. (Para 5 , 6)
5. counterarguments citing bond legalities and case law. (Para 7 , 8)
6. court reflects on legal obligations and ethical service. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
7. clarification on service during training vs. bond obligations. (Para 13 , 14)
8. reiteration of the bond's validity and obligations. (Para 15)
9. final judgment affirming bond service requirement. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

1. These Writ Appeals have been filed, challenging the orders dated 22.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 made in W.P.Nos.10829, 6434 & 6432 of 2024 respectively, in and by which, learned Single Judge, while dismissing all the Writ Petitions, held that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for reduction of period stipulated under the bond conditions and they have to serve in the Government Medical College and Hospitals.

2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Appeals is one and the same, they are taken up together for rendering a common quietus to the issue. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being acquired from W.A.No.2583 of 2024.

Brief Facts put forth by the Writ Petitioner/Appellant herein (W.A.2583/2024):

3. Dr.K.Ambika / Writ Petitioner / Appellant herein, a Doctor completed her Post Graduation in M.S. Obstetrics and Gynaecology from the 6th respondent college in the year June, 2020. She, being a Non-Service Doctor, was required to execute a bond for Rs.40,00,000/- with an undertaking that she would work for the Government for a period of two years after completing the course. She was also required to hand over all her educational as well as Medical Council Registration certificates;

3.1. In the interregnum period, on account of Covid-19 outbreak, she was assigned Covid duties in ICUs, Casualty and Emergency Wards and in the public interest, she had also taken care of Covid affected people with utmost care without any hesitation, putting her life at stake. Subsequently, she was called for counselling on 12.09.2023 for issuance of bond posting and though she was aware of the judgment of this Court dated 02.02.2023 rendered in W.P.No.26556 of 2022 [Dr.Jayakrishnan and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], fearing coercive action at the hands of the respondents, she participated in the counselling and signed a declaration by choosing a posting at the Government Hospital, Arakkonam, Ranipet;

3.2. Despite the ratio decidendi, in the case of Dr.Jayakrishnan and Others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others dated 02.02.2023 [W.P.No.26556 of 2022], she received the posting order dated 11.10.2023, posting her in the said Government Hospital for a period of one year and eight months without taking note of her services during Covid period. Subsequently, the bond period was also reduced from two years to one year vide G.O.(Ms) No.351 dated 27.10.2023 and after joining duty, she sent a letter dated 20.03.2024 to the respondents 2 and 6 to treat the Covid period from 15.06.2020 to 14.06.2023 as bond period service and the same has also been certified by the 6th respondent college. Since there was no positive response from the 2nd respondent, she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.10829 of 2024, in which, learned Single Judge passed an order dismissing the plea of the Writ Petitioner as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

3.3. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the earlier decision of this Court, dismissed the Writ Petition and the services rendered during Covid-19 by post-graduate / super specialty Doctors were refused to be treated as part of their bond duty and the Government failed to extend its arm to them and adjust the particular yeoman services rendered

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top