Doctors Will Have To Do One Year Compulsory Public Service : Karnataka HC Upholds The Rule [Read Order]
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 and Rules of 2015. Under which it mandates all students who have enrolled for Graduation, Post Graduation and Super Speciality course in medicine, post the enactment of rules of 2015, to complusorily render public service for one year,...
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 and Rules of 2015. Under which it mandates all students who have enrolled for Graduation, Post Graduation and Super Speciality course in medicine, post the enactment of rules of 2015, to complusorily render public service for one year, in government health institutes which is remunerative.
Justice Krishna Dixit dismissed a bunch of petitions filed by students and minority institutions mainly challenging the rules on the grounds of of legislative competence, discrimination, manifest arbitrariness, unworkability & proportionality, all falling under Article 14, unreasonable infringement of Fundamental Right to profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), breach of bar of ex post facto penal law enacted in Article 20(1), intrusion of Right to Privacy in-built collectively inter alia in Articles 14, 19 & 21, prohibition of forced labour contained in Article 23, interference with Rights of Religious Minorities bestowed under Article 30, arbitrary penalty, excessive delegation and of prospective operation of the Act.
The court while upholiding the validity of the Act and Rules, though directed the state government to in two months time lay down guidelines for regulating the exercise of discretion in determining the penalty amount ranging from RS 15 lakh to Re 30 lakh, and for the payment of the fine amount in just & reasonable installments, with current banking rate of interest on such delayed payment.
Further, for deferring the compulsory service for a short period or for providing for the split of service period in cases of genuine difficulty not arising from the fault of the candidates, subject to reasonable riders so that the hardship is mitigated, on proof of reasonable grounds, and constitute a High Level Committee/Grievance Redressal Cell for addressing the complaints of aggrieved candidates in the matter of imposition of fine, working conditions, infrastructural facilities, requirement of residence, commutation or the like.
As per the rules the medical practitioners during the compulsory service period be give with the designations as 'Junior Resident', 'Senior Resident' & 'Senior Specialist', these candidates will have temporary registration for practising medicine.
The bench while striking down the argument of the petitioners about Compulsory service and vinculum juris of employer - employee said "Since the State is employing these candidates in public service for a certain period, on a certain monthly remuneration ( regardless of it's nomenclature) and with a certain designation, there are all the indicia of public employment. Compulsory employment is also not unknown to Service Jurisprudence; in all civilized jurisdictions, compulsory defence services, do obtain; even the debates of Dr.Ambedkar and others in the Constituent Assembly mention about this vide CAD Vol.VII, 3rd December, 1948; there is nothing in service jurisprudence that spurns at employer-employee relationship even in a compulsive engagement of services, especially when Article 23(2) of the Constitution itself sanctions "imposing compulsory service for public purposes."
While dismissing the argument of petioners that the Impugned Act is against the Right to Profession under Article 19(1)(g), the court said "No Fundamental Rights are absolute and they admit as of necessity, reasonable restriction & regulation in larger public interest; none of the provisions of the impugned Act breaches the right to practise; on the contrary, the Act provides for medical practice soon after the course is complete, that too with designation, dignity & remuneration and for a short period of one year only; all this is in public interest."
As regards to an argument made by the petitioners that the act and rules infringe the Right to Privacy. Justice Dixit said "State's power to compel citizens to render public service is sanctioned under Article 23(1) of the Constitution."
[Read Order]