A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice C.V. Karrthikeyan in a writ of Mandamus filed by certain doctors pursuing Super Speciality Courses, held that the Services done during Covid-19 can be set off against the compulsory bond service period, it is a way to appreciate them. Further, setting off is not something specific for just the PG Courses and can be done for Super Specialty Courses as well.
Brief Facts:
This writ petition was filed by five doctors seeking the issuance of the writ of Mandamus and directing the respondents to relieve them from their service which they had agreed in separate bonds executed by them and further to direct the other concerned respondents to return their original certificates/documents as well as Super Specialty Degree certificates.
The petitioners in the current case were studying super specialty courses after the completion of their M.B.B.S Degree as well as their PG Degree. For the course, they were required to give original copies of their educational certificates which included their M.B.B.S Degree and also a bond for a sum of Rs. 50/- lakhs was executed with an undertaking that they would serve the government of Tamil Nadu for a period of two years after completing their specialty courses. Now during their study, the Covid-19 pandemic came up and they were called to serve as a front-line medical team and to attend to Covid-19 patients. They did this during their course and the bond remained in force after the completion of their course. Through this petition they want the duty done by them during their course for Covid-19, to be adjusted as part of the bond period. This is also being contended because there aren’t enough vacancies in accordance with their respective specialities and they will be accommodated in places where their specializations won’t be put to effective use.
The petitioners filled an affidavit mentioning the above facts of the case and then a counter affidavit was filled by the respondents in which the facts were admitted and further it mentioned that the petitioners were expected to for two years of any government service after the completion of the course and the petitioners cannot take advantage of their period served during covid and get that adjusted.
Observations of the Court:
The point of consideration in front of the court, was regarding the petitioners being a Super Specialty Students. This was brought in because previously the service period of covid was adjusted for the PG students and the current petitioners were differentiated with them on the basis of the Course. The court in this regard noted that the petitioners voluntarily offered medical services to treat covid-19 patients and the fact that they are super specialty students should not be held against them. The petitioners had undergone the risk and they treated the patients at a time when the vaccines were not at place and there was a lot of uncertainty, therefore the concept of adjustment of services is something to be considered as a way to appreciate the petitioners and the differentiation between the students on the basis of PG course and Super Specialty Course was found to be arbitrary. Further, the court noted that the core element behind the offering of services after the completion of the studies is purely offering services. And the only way the offering of services can be appreciated is by adjusting it with the two years bond period.
Subsequently, it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the Government must adjust the services rendered during covid-19 with the two years of services that they had to undergo as per the bond. And the refusal by the respondents would be discretionary as against the petitioners and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
Decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the respondents were directed to accommodate the adjusting of the period already completed by the petitioner with the bond period and to return their educational certificates within a period of 3 weeks.
Case Title: Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu
Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.V. Karrthikeyan
Case No.: W.P.No. 29556 of 2022 and W.M.P.No. 25617 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy
Advocate for the Respondent: For RR 1 to 7: Mr. U. Baranitharan (Additional Government Pleader); For 8th Respondent: Mrs. Shubha Ranjani Ananth
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments