Dr.Sundhiip Krishnan.S Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Dr.Sundhiip Krishnan.S Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second respondent directed to issue fresh posting orders forthwith to petitioners 3, 5 to 7 and 10 to comply with the bond period; petitioners 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 directed to join their respective allotted posts as per the posting order within two weeks from receipt of the order; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the issuance of direct posting orders to the petitioners, without calling them for counselling as was done for other doctors who had completed their post-graduation, was a clear violation and unreasoned, the counselling having been conducted in a non-transparent manner so as to deprive the petitioners of their right to make an informed decision regarding their posting. +1 more

Court's answer

The fourth respondent (in context, petitioner No.4) has joined the post as per the posting order and is continuing in that post; insofar as petitioners 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11, the posts allotted to them are now vacant, whereas insofar as petitioners 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10, the places where they were posted have now been filled up by other candidates.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of records, all the petitioners are non-service candidates, and counselling is applicable only in respect of service candidates to opt their places; therefore the petitioners cannot complain that other doctors who completed their post-graduation were called for counselling while they were not.

Key takeaways

The second respondent is directed to issue fresh posting orders to petitioners 3, 5 to 7 and 10 in order to comply with the bond period, forthwith.ratio¶49
Insofar as petitioners 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11, the Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, and they shall join in their respective places as per the posting order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Madras (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) — W.P.No.23170 of 2025, decided 22.09.2025. Eleven post-graduate doctors, non-service candidates who had executed bonds at post-graduate admission (after NEET PG eligibility) undertaking to serve Government hospitals for two years on pain of depositing Rs.40,00,000/-, challenged the posting orders dated 09.06.2025 issued by the second respondent (Directorate of Medical Education and Research) pursuant to the bond conditions, contending that other post-graduate doctors were given counselling and choice of posting while they were posted directly, in a non-transparent manner, depriving them of an informed decision. Held: counselling is applicable only to service candidates to opt their places; hence the non-service candidate petitioners cannot complain of exclusion from counselling. Petitioner No.4 has already joined and continues in the posted position. Petitioners 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 — whose allotted posts remain vacant — were directed to join their respective places within two weeks, the Court finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as regards them; the second respondent was directed to issue fresh posting orders forthwith to petitioners 3, 5 to 7 and 10 (whose posted places stood filled by other candidates) to comply with the bond period. Writ petition disposed of accordingly; connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP.nos.26038 & 26039 of 2025) closed; no order as to costs.