Dismissed

Dr.Naveen K v. the Principal, Government Medical College

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/6738/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order requiring the petitioner to serve a one-year bonded period after completing a super specialty course. The court held that the prospectus mandates service for both specialty and super specialty courses within a total two-year limit, dismissing the petitioners claim for exemption.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding the petitioner bound to undergo one year bonded service after super specialty course.

Dr.Naveen K Vs the Principal, Government Medical College — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6738 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.NAVEEN K

¶8

BONDED SENIOR RESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011

¶9

BY ADVS. U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.V.JAYANANDAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

BY ADV.SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

W.P.(C)No.6738 of 2021 -------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of September 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is a Senior Resident Doctor in Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, he completed Master of surgery in General Surgery and also completed the statutory obligatory bonded service for one year. Ext.P2 is the certificate which will show that the petitioner worked as Senior Resident under bonded obligation in the Department of General Surgery for a period of one year from 10.07.2015 to 09.07.2016. Thereafter the petitioner was admitted for the super specialty course based on Ext.P3 prospectus. The petitioner completed the super specialty course as evident by Ext.P4 provisional degree certificate. According to the petitioner, he was forced to continue bonded service for another one year as per

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶24

Ext.P7. In Ext.P7 the petitioner is serial No.15. Admittedly, the petitioner is now doing the bonded service based on Ext.P7. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, in the light of the completion of bonded service after completing the specialty course as evident by

¶25

Ext.P2, the petitioner need not do the bonded service again after the super specialty course. Hence Ext.P7 is challenged.

¶26

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel takes me through Clause 10.1.2 in Ext.P3 prospectus. The learned counsel submitted that in Clause 10.1.2, it is clearly stated that the

¶29

total service rendered by the petitioner shall be inclusive of obligation of compulsory bond for specialty and super specialty course done in the Government Medical College of Kerala. The learned counsel submitted that, as per Ext.P5, the bonded

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶32

service is reduced to one year. Since the petitioner already completed one year after completing the specialty course, the petitioner need not undergo the bonded service after the super specialty course. This is the sum and substance of the argument. The learned counsel submitted that in Paragraph No.3 of Ext.P6, it is clarified that the bonded service is only one year after completing the super specialty course.

¶33

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a mere reading of Ext.P3 prospectus itself will show that the petitioner has to undergo bonded service after the specialty course and also after the super specialty course. Admittedly, the bonded service required after the super specialty course as on now is only one year. The petitioner almost

¶34

completed the one year and the bonded service will expire on 01.11.2021. In such circumstances, this Court may not interfere with Ext.P7.

¶35

5. I perused the pleadings and also considered

¶36

the arguments of the petitioner and the learned

¶37

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶38

¶39

Government Pleader. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P3 prospectus. Clause

¶40

10.1.2 of Ext.P3 prospectus is extracted hereunder:

¶41

“10.1.2. All candidates admitted to Government Medical Colleges will serve the Government of Kerala in Health Service/Medical Education Service for a period not less than two years continuously after the completion of the course. This total service rendered by him/her shall be inclusive of obligations of compulsory bond for specialty and super-specialty courses done in government Medical Colleges of Kerala (ie, there shall not be separate obligations of two years for both) shall not exceed 2 years. The facility of relieving will not be made available for observership, fellowship or any other courses. The service in Central or any other State Government or other Public Sector Undertakings (except Defence Service) will not count for relaxation of the compulsory services. They shall be relieved only after 2 years and such service should be done without any break immediately after the course. The Principals of the Colleges where they complete the courses shall retain the certificates till such time as proof of the satisfactory completion of the courses given by the competent authorities ie, DMO/Principal of the college where bond posting is given as the case may be.

¶42

'All students of Regional Cancer Center- Thiruvananthapuram shall do compulsory service of not less than 1 year after their Post Graduate course in Regional Cancer Center/MCC or Oncology Department of a Government Medical College(For

¶43

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶44

¶45

further details regarding compulsory service please

¶46

refer to the website of RCCThiruvananthapuram(http://www.rcctvm.org/)'”

¶47

6. Admittedly, the petitioner joined for the super specialty course based on Ext.P3 prospectus. So the petitioner is bound by the Clauses in Ext.P3 prospectus. A reading of Clause 10.1.2 of Ext.P3 prospectus, it is clear that the total service rendered by the petitioner shall be inclusive of obligations of compulsory bond for specialty and super specialty course done in government Medical Colleges of Kerala. Since 'and' is used after the specialty and super specialty courses, it is clear

¶48

that the bonded service is necessary for the specialty course and the super specialty course. Admittedly, the bonded service after super specialty course is now reduced to one year. In such circumstances, the petitioner is bound to undergo one year bonded service after super specialty course also. The petitioner is relying the beginning part of the sentence in Clause 10.1.2 of Ext.P3 in which

¶49

¶50

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶51

it is stated that, “ This total service rendered by him/her shall be inclusive of obligations of compulsory bond for specialty and super-specialty courses done in government Medical Colleges of Kerala (ie, there shall not be separate obligations of two years for both) shall not exceed 2 years.”

¶52

But subsequently in the same sentence it is clearly stated that “specialty and super specialty course” .

¶53

In such circumstances, according to me, the

¶54

contention of the petitioner will not stand. I perused Ext.P8 judgment also. In that case, this Court issued orders because of specific clause in the prospectus. There is no such clause in Ext.P3 prospectus. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6738/2021

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE DEGREE
	CERTIFICATE IN MS (GENERAL SURGERY) NO. 121520021 DATED 18.2.2016 ISSUED BY KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND SCIENCE.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. G3/23896/2016/GMCT DATED 16.7.2016 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 1921/2017/H&FWD DATED 10.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN M CH NO. 0111793 DATED 9.11.2020 ISSUED BY KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO. 30/2018/H&FWD DATED 20.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO. 192/2020/H&FWD DATED 06.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G3/21835/2020/GMCT DATED 12.11.2020 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 27652/2016 DATED 2.12.2016 OF HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH TOKEN ISSUED BY THE TAMILNADU MEDICAL COUNCIL.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPICATION DATED 2.3.21 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION

¶63

WP(C) NO.6738/2021

¶64

¶65

CERTIFICATE SL.NO. 960179 DATED 4.2.2021 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE COCHIN COUNCIL OF MODERN MEDICINE.

¶66

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

PA TO JUDGE

Dr.Naveen K v. the Principal, Government Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Naveen K v. the Principal, Government Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palamadathil Kotyat Pathumma Vs Kaithavalappil Khader Haji, S/O. Koya

Parvathy Sonia Suraj @ Sonia Skaria Vs Pradhan Mantri Vidya Lakshmi Karyakram( Vidya Lakshmi Portal)

A. Thulaseedharan Nair and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

David John Vs the District Collector

Sabu C Vs the Chenkal Grama Panchayath

Sc/St Employees Welfare Association of Bsnl, Kerala Circle Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited