Back
Doctor Can't Escape Compulsory Govt Service Bond After Subsidised PG:
In a significant ruling that balances public interest with individual rights, the has held that a doctor who has benefited from subsidised postgraduate medical education cannot evade her merely because of administrative delays in offering a posting. At the same time, the Court emphasised that such a doctor cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the process for allocation of government service.
The Bond That Binds
Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta completed her MBBS from in 2018 and later secured admission to the MD (Transfusion Medicine) course at , for the 2021-2022 session. As a condition for admission, she executed a on , undertaking to serve under the government for two years after completing her postgraduate degree. The bond stipulated that the government must provide her service within three months of course completion; failing that, the bond would stand discharged. It also provided for a penalty of ₹40 lakh and a on her original certificates.
After successfully completing her MD in 2025, Dr. Gupta was selected for a one-year Post-Doctoral Certificate Course (PDCC) at the same institute. She applied for and obtained a (NOC) from the on . The NOC contained clear conditions: the PDCC period would not be counted towards the compulsory bond service, and she would be accommodated as a Senior Resident only against a seat left vacant after the NEET-PG 2022 batch had been placed.
Upon completing her PDCC on , Dr. Gupta repeatedly requested the DGME to conduct counselling for her bond service. However, she was instead given a short-term Senior Resident posting at SGPGI from May 2 to . On , the government issued an order transferring her to , to serve her bond. She challenged this order, arguing that since the government had failed to offer her a posting within three months of completing her MD (or PDCC), the bond stood automatically discharged. She relied on judgments from the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh High Courts.
The Court firmly rejected this argument.
"Having availed the benefit of the NOC on these terms, it is not open to her to now approbate the advantage of pursuing a further specialization while reprobating the very condition on which that advantage was extended,"
the bench observed, citing the
's principle against "
" established in
.
No Automatic Discharge in Uttar Pradesh
The Court distinguished the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh rulings, noting that they turned on specific statutory rules—
—which provide for
of the bond. No such provision exists in Uttar Pradesh.
"In the absence of a provision analogous to Rule 11, the ratio of the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh decisions, being tied to a specific statutory scheme, cannot be transplanted to the present case,"
the Court held.
The bench also relied on the 's decision in
, which upheld the validity of compulsory service bonds as a legitimate
for subsidised medical education.
"A candidate who has made an informed choice to avail the benefit of subsidised postgraduate medical education cannot resile from the
attached to it,"
the Court noted.
Public Interest and Article 21
The Court underscored the public interest behind compulsory service bonds.
"We also note that the laudable objective with which the State Governments have introduced compulsory service bonds is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society guaranteed to them under
, and as such any administrative delay of a miniscule period of time to offer for the said service cannot be faulted with,"
the bench stated. It further observed that the State invests heavily in medical education infrastructure and that government hospitals are duty-bound to provide medical assistance, making the bond a necessary tool to ensure adequate staffing.
Counselling: A Right Not to Be Denied
However, the Court found merit in Dr. Gupta's grievance that she was never given an opportunity to participate in the
process for bond service. The counselling notification dated
, relied upon by the authorities, was meant only for NEET-PG 2022 (MD/MS) and NEET-PG 2023 (Diploma) candidates, not for her NEET-PG 2021 batch. The impugned order of
, also did not demonstrate that she had been offered counselling.
"The condition in her NOC requiring her to be accommodated after the later batch does not take away her right to participate in the
contemplated under the relevant Government Orders,"
the Court clarified.
The Court also directed that the 89-day short-term Senior Residency at SGPGI from May 2 to , be counted and adjusted towards her two-year , as it was actual service rendered in a government hospital under a stop-gap arrangement.
The Verdict and Its Implications
The partly allowed the . It directed Dr. Gupta to submit a comprehensive representation by , setting out her case. The DGME was ordered to conduct a fresh counselling for her within four weeks, requisitioning vacant seats from NMC-recognised government medical colleges and teaching institutions, and affording her a choice of institution to the extent vacancies permit. Until such counselling, she may continue as Senior Resident at SGPGI, but without any right or on that post after the counselling.
The ruling reinforces the binding nature of compulsory service bonds for doctors who have benefited from publicly funded medical education, while also ensuring procedural fairness through . It serves as a reminder that administrative delays do not automatically extinguish contractual obligations, especially when they serve a larger constitutional purpose.
