Don’t compel medicos to sign bond for government service, says Karnataka HC
The court, however, said that this order would not come in the way of authorities taking the services of these doctors in government hospitals under any other law.
Published: 28th November 2018 01:50 AM | Last Updated: 28th November 2018 10:13 AM | A+A A-
Karnataka High Court (File Photo |EPS)
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government not to compel postgraduate medical candidates to give an undertaking to appear for counselling for government service, after completion of their courses.
Justice Krishna S Dixit passed this order while allowing the petitions filed by Dr Ankita Bedwal of Dehradun and Dr C H Keerthi Reddy of Bengaluru. The duo doctors have challenged the office memorandum dated October 17 and November 3, 2018 from the Directorate of Medical Education to give their undertaking for counselling for government service.
Quashing both the communications, the court said no penal action can be taken against the petitioners on the sole ground that they have not obeyed the call, for counselling or for the deployment of their services to the government.
Through this memorandum, the doctors were called for the counselling for the purpose of deploying their services to the Government, after completion of their courses.
“Since the two petitioners did not sign any bond/undertaking in terms of the Rule 15(5) of Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006, no penal action can be taken against them for not appearing for the counselling,” the court said, as the government failed to produce any material to show that they signed the undertaking.
The court, however, said that this order would not come in the way of authorities taking the services of these doctors in government hospitals under any other law.
The counsel for the Medical Education department contended that the petitioners do not have a cause of action since option is left to them to attend counselling and that no coercive action has been taken against them.
However, the counsel for doctors argued that although apparently there is no coercive action for their lack of participation in the scheduled counselling, the failure to serve the State is most likely to entail them with huge penalty in terms of the provision of Rule 15 of 2006 Rules.
