Karnataka HC: Doctor Can't Be Bound to Govt Service Forever Without Posting
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a government doctor who availed of the in-service quota for admission to a super-speciality course cannot be forced to remain in government service for life if the government fails to provide a posting after the course is completed. A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T. made the observation while upholding a single judge's 2023 order that set aside disciplinary action against Dr. Adnan Saeed, a surgical oncologist.
The case dates back to 2009, when Dr. Saeed was appointed as an Intensive Care Medical Officer at the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI). In 2015, he secured a seat at the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (KMIO) under the in-service quota to pursue MCh in Surgical Oncology. As per government rules at the time, he executed a bond undertaking to serve the government until retirement.
Dr. Saeed completed his three-year course in 2018. After reporting back for duty, he repeatedly requested the government to assign him a posting. However, no posting was given. For more than three years, he received neither a salary nor a work assignment. Left with no option, he resigned in August 2021. The BMCRI refused to accept his resignation and instead initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging unauthorised absence. This prompted Dr. Saeed to approach the High Court.
The single judge had earlier ruled that the disciplinary action was unjustified, as Dr. Saeed had resigned only after the government's failure to provide him with a posting. The Division Bench agreed with this view. The court observed that a doctor who reports for duty and seeks a posting cannot be blamed for the government's inaction.
“A super-speciality qualified doctor cannot be expected to remain idle and not work when no posting orders are provided to him, in spite of reporting to the government for duty and seeking the same,” the Bench said. The government had argued that Dr. Saeed had left the country to work abroad, but the court dismissed this contention, pointing out that no posting orders had been issued to him.
The Bench also examined the legal position regarding bonds that require doctors to serve the government for life. It referred to a 2019 Supreme Court judgment in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents vs Union of India, noting that the apex court had not examined the validity of such a condition. The High Court expressed its own view, stating: “We are of the opinion that the condition that a post-graduate doctor, who has availed of the in-service quota for admission to a super-speciality course, must remain indebted to the government for the rest of his official life, even in the absence of any posting orders, is not an acceptable proposition.”
The judgment has significant implications for government doctors who undergo super-speciality training under in-service quotas. It clarifies that the obligation to serve the government cannot be one-sided. If the government fails to provide a posting, it cannot later penalise a doctor for not continuing in service. The ruling also underscores the responsibility of the state to utilise the skills of trained medical professionals rather than leaving them without work.
In this case, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the single judge's order, effectively clearing Dr. Saeed of the disciplinary charges. The decision is being seen as a relief for doctors in similar situations, where administrative lapses leave them in limbo despite their willingness to serve.
