C O M M O N O R D E R

The petitioners, challenging the proposal of the Government for regularizing the Post Graduation two years bonding period from the date of entry, vide proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 19.02.2021 and thereby they are losing their promotion from the date of entry into service by the Government of Tamil Nadu, have filed the present writ petitions.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are Doctors, appointed as Assistant Surgeons and Assistant Professors during 2005 to 2011 and registered themselves with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and have put in about 15 years of service as Government Doctors and discharging his duties in various Government Hospitals and Government Primary Health Centres without any black mark. According to the petitioners, the appointment of Non service PG Bond doctors is purely temporary and obligatory bond service in DME side, which is totally against Tamil Nadu Medical Service Rules and G.O.(Ms)No.354, Health and Family Welfare dated 23.10.2009. The Non- Services Post Graduates, while entering PG course, have signed bond to serve in the Tamil Nadu Government for 2 years after completing their PG course. If they are not willing to serve in Tamil Nadu Government, they have to pay Rs.40/- lakhs to Tamil Nadu Government, because they are getting stipend and using the resources from Government during their Post Graduation course and so their service is purely a temporary bond service and they have to be terminated after completing continuous two years of bond service. 3. The petitioners would contend that appointment of Non-Service PG Bond doctors are temporary and they have to be terminated after completion of 2 years bond period and if they want to enter into Government service, they have to appear for the Medical Recruitment Board [MRB] examination to get selected for permanent post and they should be regularized from the date of passing MRB examination and not from the date of bond entry. But on the contrary, their services were counted and regularized from the date of joining the bond service.

4. The petitioners would further contend that proviso to Rules 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2015 says that “no appointment by direct recruitment made under this Section shall be of any person other than the one sponsored by the Commission from its regular or reserve list of successful candidates to any of the posts within the purview of the Commission”. Proviso to Rule 17(1) also says that “direct recruitment shall be made only where new post with new qualifications are created temporarily and where the Commission does not have a regular or reserve list of successful candidates for sponsoring, but not for the already sanctioned regular post”. The same Section says that any post filed by temporary appointment under this Section, the temporary candidate has to be subsequently replaced by regular service candidate as soon as possible. According to the petitioners, in the case on hand, bond candidates appointed temporarily as Assistant Professors are never been replaced by regular eligible service candidates and in addition, the temporary candidates have been given subsequent promotions as Associate Professor and Professor, by treating them on par with regular appointment and promotion of temporary candidates permanently blocks the promotional opportunities of regular candidates. 5. The petitioners would further contend that when a temporary candidate is appointed on the basis of agreement as per Rule 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, they shall not be regarded as a member of the service in which post they are appointed and shall not be entitled to any preferential claim to any other appointment in that service as per Section 19(2). So a temporary candidate cannot claim to write MRB exam while doing bond service. Hence allowing them to write MRB during bond period and regularizing them from the dat