VINOD SHANKARLAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted by doctors, who have either completed or are students of Super- speciality courses in Medicine. On the non-surgical discipline, the super- speciality course is D.M. while on the surgical side, the super-speciality course is M.Ch. Of the 62 doctors in the first Petition and 69 doctors in the second, the distribution is in three batches. The first batch consists of doctors, who had obtained admission to the D.M. or M.Ch. in 2009 and who have passed their course in September 2012. The second batch is of doctors, who were admitted in 2010 and who would be completing their course of studies in 2013, while the third batch consists of doctors, who were admitted in 2011 and who would be completing their studies in 2014. All the doctors before the Court have completed their basic M.B.B.S. Degree as well as a post-graduation in the relevant branches of medicine in which they have specialized.

(2.) THE genesis of the dispute in the present case arises from the policy of the State Government which requires doctors who embark upon studies in medicine to furnish a bond that upon completing their studies, they shall serve for a stipulated period in Government Medical Colleges, those run by local self-governing bodies or, as the case may be, in hospitals affiliated to the defence services. On 31 July 2006, a Government Resolution was issued, which took note of the fact that while the State Government and Municipal Corporations incur a considerable amount of expenditure towards meeting the expenses of graduate and post-graduate education in the colleges run by them, the fees charged by those colleges do not meet the cost of education. Since the expenditure is met through the public exchequer, the State Government envisaged that graduate and the post- graduate students from State Government and Municipal Corporation run Colleges should be required to serve either the State Government or, as the case may be, local self-governing bodies or the defence services for a stipulated period and that a bond should be executed by them. For the present purposes, it may not be necessary to refer to the Government Resolution dated 31 July 2006 in any great detail since it was replaced by a subsequent Government Resolution dated 8 February 2008.

(3.) BY a subsequent Government Resolution resolution dated 28 May 2010, the penalty for a breach of bond by students admitted to super- speciality courses has been enhanced from Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.2 crores. The execution of the decision was made applicable for the super-speciality common entrance test to be held from 2010. Subsequently, by a Government Resolution dated 21 March 2012, the period of the bond has been revised to a requirement of one year service instead of two years' service for students, who have obtained degrees in a super-speciality courses from academic year 2008-2009.