Back
Rules One-Year Bond for PG Doctors Starts From Result Date, Not Joining
"": Court Calls Idle Doctors a Loss to Society
In a significant ruling, the has held that the one-year required of post-graduate medical students who studied in government colleges begins immediately upon the publication of their results, not from their actual date of joining duty. Justice Viju Abraham, presiding over two connected , also decried the situation where dozens of qualified doctors have been left idle for months as a "" and directed the state government to take urgent remedial action.
The Case: Two Pleas, One Common Grievance
The court was hearing WP(C) Nos. 25441 and 9651 of 2026, filed by 23 doctors who completed their PG courses from various government medical colleges in Kerala. Most of them passed their final examinations on or about , with one candidate completing on . As a condition of admission under the prospectus, they had executed bonds undertaking to serve the as Senior Residents for a continuous period of one year. Their original degree certificates were retained by the colleges as security.
The doctors' central complaint was that despite their readiness to serve, the state had failed to issue posting orders for months. Some had waited up to eight months without any appointment, while others who had joined were told their bond period would only count from the date they actually reported for duty—a calculation they argued violated the prospectus.
Petitioners' Arguments: Bond Violates Rights, State Must Honour Its Obligation
In WP(C) No. 25441, the petitioners sought a declaration that the
itself was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of
. They contended that the state's inaction in providing postings while retaining their certificates amounted to an unjust restraint on their right to practice their profession. They further argued that
of the prospectus clearly stated that the period of
"will be only from the date of publication of the result,"
and that the state could not unilaterally shift that starting point to the date of joining.
The petitioners in WP(C) No. 9651 focused on the failure to provide postings at all, and sought a directing the respondents to issue appointment orders immediately.
State's Stand: Overlap of Batches Caused Unprecedented Shortage
The government countered that the bond was a valid condition attached to the concessional medical education provided by the state, and pointed to a ruling in that had upheld such bonds. It explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, admissions for the 2021 batch were delayed, causing an overlap with the 2022 batch. As a result, nearly 1,000 PG students completed their courses at the same time, while only about 600 vacancies were available. The had submitted a proposal for additional , which was pending before the government. The state maintained that the prospectus gave it one year to provide postings, and that the doctors' grievances were premature.
Legal Analysis: Bond Valid but Period Starts from Result Date
Justice Viju Abraham first rejected the challenge to the bond's validity, following the in
Ayisha Beegam
. However, he agreed with the petitioners' interpretation of the prospectus. Quoting
, the court held that
"the obligation of a post-graduate student... is only from the date of publication of result for a period of one year. The period of
as a bonded obligation has to start from the date of publication of the result irrespective of whether a posting could be granted soon after the publication of the result or thereafter."
The court noted that the state's delay in issuing postings had left doctors without stipends and unable to work elsewhere, since their certificates were withheld. This, the court observed, created a paradox: the state insisted on the bond but could not provide the work, forcing doctors into idleness.
"": Court's Strong Observation
Calling the situation a "," Justice Viju Abraham remarked:
"I am of the view that this is a
since the post-graduate students are sitting idle without discharging any function, without providing any service to the public in Government or in a private sector."
The court noted that the overlap of batches was a one-time administrative difficulty, but warned that if left unaddressed, the same problem could recur in subsequent years.
Precedents Cited: Chhattisgarh and Madras High Courts
The judgment drew on two persuasive authorities. In WP(C) No. 6594 of 2025 , the had held that when the state fails to provide a posting within six months of completion of the course, the bond automatically stands cancelled. The had also dealt with a similar issue in WP(C) No. 32649 of 2022 and connected cases, supporting the view that unreasonable delay by the state cannot be held against the doctors.
Direction to Government: Create Posts or Relieve Doctors Within One Month
While upholding the bond's validity in principle, the court directed the state government to take a decision within one month on the proposal to create , so that the doctors could complete their bonded service. In the alternative, the state was directed to relieve the petitioners from their bond obligations, given that nearly eight months had already passed since the publication of results.
The court disposed of both with these directions, clarifying that the bond period for all doctors shall be reckoned from the date of publication of the result.
The judgment is likely to bring relief to hundreds of PG medical graduates in Kerala who have been caught in the administrative backlog, and may prompt the government to either expand the cadre or revise the bond system to prevent future logjams.
