The Madras High Court has rejected the petitions submitted by three doctors, challenging the actions of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine in appointing them as Assistant Surgeons in accordance with a bond agreement as per the regulations.
Justice SM Subramaniam dismissed the petitions filed by S Sahana Priyankaa and two others, reported PTI.
Petitioners say service rendered in pandemic to be considered
The petitioners had contended that they were in service during the pandemic. Hence, the period should be taken into consideration for calculating the total period of two years of service to be rendered as per the bond conditions.
The government stated that such claims have been submitted by several students previously and hence, the period was previously reduced from two years to just one.
Therefore, the petitioners have to complete one year of service in any Government Medical College and Hospital in compliance with the bond conditions, stated a PTI report.
Compulsory service to the poor and the needy
Under the conditions of the bond, the judge reportedly said that the government expects the doctors who have received affordable postgraduate training to prioritise serving the underprivileged and those in need.
Hence, to ensure that the services of trained Post Graduate Doctors were made available to the poor and needy patients, a bond signed by the candidates with three sureties was obtained from the candidates at the time of their admission.
The judge said that permitting such an attitude among doctors would foster a disregard for the well-being of the underprivileged, especially considering the education they received at the expense of public funds. This stance was deemed contrary to public interest and deemed unacceptable.
Flouting of bond regulations
Despite executing the bond, many of the candidates, after completing their course, neither worked in government institutions nor paid the bond amount in a few cases, after a few days of work.
According to PTI, the judge added that the government order's core reason was undermined by candidates who breached their bond conditions, leading to a significant shortage of doctors in Tamil Nadu's government medical institutions. Consequently, depriving poor patients of essential treatment.
Doctors who, after undergoing medical specialty courses, refused to work in government hospitals, were infringing upon the fundamental rights of such poor and needy patients. Hence, the judge said that these requests cannot be entertained.
The judge remarked that even the government lacked justification for reducing the bond period from two years to one.
Decision given
Given that the petitioners willingly signed the bond and agreed to its terms and conditions, they were not entitled to seek any further reduction in the stipulated period. Therefore, they are obligated to fulfill their service in Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals, as outlined in their appointment orders.
Once the stipulated period is completed, the authorities may then consider appropriate decisions, the judge concluded.
