Dr. Amit Kumar Jain & Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Heard on admission.

Petitioners prosecuting their Post Graduate Medical Course (MD Course) in different streams have jointly filed this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking quashment of Clause 11(ii) of Schedule III of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 which

mandates execution of Bond to serve in Rural Areas on completion of course.

Relevant facts reveal that having successfully completed their under Graduate Course (MBBS) and undergone Bond service, the petitioners

thereafter pursued their Post Graduate Diploma Courses. And on completion thereof also they underwent the Bond Service. To further upgrade their

qualification the petitioners took admission to Post Graduate Course wherein as per stipulations contained in the Rules of 2018 they are required to

execute a Bond for serving in Rural Areas on completion of Post Graduate Degree Course.

Contention on behalf of the petitioners is that having been benefited with one year relaxation in Post Graduate Degree Course in lieu of Post

Graduate Diploma, as per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000, framed by the Medical Council of India, thereby acknowledging that

the Post Graduate Degree Course is continuation of Post Graduate Diploma Course, the petitioners be exempted from executing the service Bond on

completion of Post Graduate Degree Course, because as they have already served on completion of Post Graduate Diploma Course.

The submissions though attractive have no legal foundation.

The Regulations 2000, nowhere stipulate that the Post Graduate Degree Course is a continuation of Post Graduate Diploma Course. It does not

stipulate that the Post Graduate Diploma Course is a condition precedent for admission to Post Graduate Degree Course. The Post Graduate Degree

Course as per Regulation 2 of Regulation 2000 is of three years. Only some relaxation in the period of training to those students having a recognized

two year post graduate diploma course in same subject is granted vide Regulation 10 of the Regulation 2000. Even with such relaxations the

incumbent are awarded Post Graduate Degree which is a higher qualification then a Post Graduate Diploma.

Completing a Degree Course with relaxation, in our considered opinion have no nexus with the execution of Bond to service in Rural Areas on such

completion, which has a different object, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and

Residents & others vs. Union of India & others: Writ Petition (Civil) No.376/2018 decided on 19.08.2019, wherein it is held by their Lordships:

“17. … The Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of execution of compulsory bonds at the time of admission to postgraduate

courses and super Speciality courses cannot be said to be vitiated due to lack of authority or competence. The field of bonds requiring compulsory employment is

not covered by any Central Legislation. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants that the States lacked competence to issue the notifications as

the field is occupied are rejected.

… The decision taken by the State Governments to impose a condition of compulsory bond for admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality is on the

basis of relevant material. Huge infrastructure has to be developed and maintained for running medical colleges with post-graduate and super Speciality courses. The

amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison to the private medical colleges. Reasonable stipend has to be paid to the doctors. Above all, the

State Governments have taken into account the need to provide health care to the people and the scarcity of super specialists in their States. Consequently, a policy

decision taken by the State Governments to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of Government assistance to complete their education cannot be

termed arbitrary.

… The State Governments and the Armed Forces Medical College are directed to consider imposing the condition of compulsory service period of two years in

default of which the Doctors shall recompense the Government by paying Rs. 20 Lakhs.

… The compulsory bond executed by the Appellants is at the time of their admissions into post-graduate and super Speciality courses. Conditions imposed for

admission to a medical college will not directly violate the right of an individual to carry on his profession. The right to carry on the profession would start on the

completion of the course. At the outset, there is no doubt that no right inheres in an individual to receive higher education. Violation of a right guaranteed under

Article 19(1)(g) does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a college. There is no doubt, that the condition that is imposed has a connection with the

professional activity of a doctor on completion of the course. However, the Appellants have, without any protest, accepted the admissions and executed the

compulsory bonds. Execution of bonds is part of a composite package. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court that the Appellants have

not been able to succeed in their attempt of assailing the Notifications for being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.â€​ ...

The State’s obligations are not satisfied solely by refraining from imposing limitations on the right to human dignity. The State must also take action to protect

human dignity and to facilitate its realization. …

...

The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that right to life guaranteed by Article 21 means right to life with human dignity. Communitarian dignity has been

recognised by this Court. While balancing communitarian dignity vis-Ã -vis the dignity of private individuals, the scales must tilt in favour of communitarian dignity.

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 Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the Appellants that their rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India have been violated is rejected.

The submission of Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is that the conditions of the bond per se amount to ‘forced labour’ and

thus are violative of Article 23(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi expostulated the said submission by referring to Article 23 (2) which confers power on the State to

impose compulsory service for public purpose. Reliance was placed upon the Constituent Assembly Debates by Mr. Dwivedi explaining the scope of compulsory

employment for public purpose under Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a decent stipend

cannot complain that they are made to perform ‘forced labour’, especially after the Appellants have taken an informed decision to avail the benefits of

admission in government medical colleges and received subsidized education. By no means, the service rendered by the Appellants in Government hospitals would

fall under the expression of ‘forced labour’.

...

Specific performance of contract for personal service is not permissible under the Specific Relief Act, therefore, there cannot be a decree for specific performance

of a contract of personal nature. None of the State Governments have made an attempt to enforce the contracts entered into by them with the Appellants through the

service bonds. We are not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Ahmadi that the compulsory bonds fall foul of the Specific Relief Act.

The argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants that compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their profession and thus, would be contrary to Section 27 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872. The High Court of Calcutta repelled this submission by holding that the compulsory bond does not amount to any restraint on the

professional activity of the Appellants. The High Court observed that the Appellants are offered the job of Medical Officer in the State of West Bengal and that the

covenant in the compulsory bond operates only during the period of such employment. Relying upon the dictum of Lord Morris in Esso Petroleum v. Harper’s

Garage (Stourport) Ltd., 1967 1 All ER 699 that “if A made a contract under which he willingly agreed to serve B on reasonable terms for a few years and to give his

whole working time to B, it would be surprising indeed, if it were sought to describe the contract as being in restraint of trade; in fact, such a contract would very

likely be for the advancement of trade’, the High Court concluded that a contract entered into by Appellants to serve the government for a few years under

reasonable terms cannot be described as one in restraint of trade. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court of Calcutta. Therefore, we are of

the considered opinion that the conditions of compulsory bonds for admission to post-graduate and super-Speciality courses in government medical colleges are not

in violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The upshot of the above discussion is that the Writ Petitions and the Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Consequently, all the Doctors who have executed

compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein.â€​

In view whereof, since Post Graduate Degree Course is not a continuation of Post Graduate Diploma Course, the petitioners cannot as a matter of

right claim for exemption from executing the Bond as per stipulations contained in Clause 11(ii) of Schedule III of the Admissions Rules, 2018.

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Â