Karnataka High Court Waives Compulsory Rural Service For 447 Doctors As State Failed To Notify Amended Rules For Over 10 Yrs

The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to 447 MBBS students from compulsory rural service for one year, as sought under the 2012 amendment of Rule 11 of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006, as the amended rule was not gazetted for 10 years after it was finalised.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Sharanya Mohan and quashed the corrigendum dated 17-06-2021, only insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

It said “Only for these petitioners the action is held to be illegal in the teeth of the Rule not being in force as on the date on which it was sought to be implemented/imposed upon every student through execution of bonds.” However, it clarified that the law is no valid and students cannot escape from rural service.

The State Government notified Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. Under the said Act, Rules came to be notified viz., the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006. Rule 11 of the said Rules of 2006 was amended by issuance of a notification on 17-07-2012.

The amended Rule 11 mandates execution of a bond by candidates selected for medical seats in Government and private colleges run under the Government quota giving an undertaking that he/she is prepared to serve in any Government Primary Health Centres or Government Primary Health Unit in rural areas of Karnataka on completion of the course for a minimum period of one year and in default thereof, the candidate shall be liable to pay a penalty of rupees ten lakhs to the Government. These rules were to come into force from date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

The petitioners had argued that the bond was sought under the amended Rule 11 which as never notified and, therefore, the bond under the amended Rule 11 is illegal.

That apart, they argued that the State Government does not have legislative competence to notify Rule 11. Moreover, the bonds were executed by them at the time when they joined medical courses and they were not even 18 years old and, therefore, the bonds are unenforceable.

The government had opposed the plea contending that the Notification of 8-06-2021 issued under 2006 Rules cannot be questioned by the petitioners as at the relevant point in time, the Government quota students formed a different class against other class of students. Further, since the State later made compulsory service uniformly applicable to one and all through Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012, it cannot be struck down on the ground that it is arbitrary.

State also contended that Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules was notified under Section 14 of the Capitation Fee Act which permits the Government to regulate by Rules the purposes of the Act. One such purpose of the Act, according to the State, is the one that is notified in the year 2006. There are several notifications under 2006 Rules. Regulation of admission in educational institutions is what Section 14 of the Capitation Act contemplates and, therefore, Rule 11 falls within the ambit of Section 14 as it seeks to regulate admission to educational institutions.

Findings:

Firstly, the bench relied on the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Bushra Abdul Aleem v. Govt of Karnataka (2020) wherein it was held that imposition of compulsory service does not take away or infringe the fundamental right of petitioners' right to practice. It said, “Though the judgment was rendered qua the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the issue regarding legislative competence is the same; the contentions advanced are the same and, therefore what is answered by the co-ordinate Bench equally applies to the contentions that are now repeated in the case at hand.”

Court then rejected the contention of petitioners that the Act of 2012 is repugnant to National Medical Commission Act, 2019. It primarily referred to Apex Court judgment in the case Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of MP (2016), which recognized the power of the State to regulate admission to courses referable to List-III, Entry 25 (Education, including technical education, medical education and universities).

It said “The submission of repugnancy needs to be repelled, as the NMC Act comes about in the year 2019. The Act does not restrict the powers of the State to regulate education in terms of Entry-25 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule.”

Coming to the delay in notifying the amendment, Court said since the petitioners were beneficiaries of seats in Government colleges or under Government quota in private medical colleges, they should be directed to undergo rural service but, that should be in accordance with law. In the case at hand since the amended Rule came into effect 10 years after the promulgation of the Rules, Court quashed the corrigendum and held that the bonds that are executed by the petitioners are contrary to law. It said,

"The State appears to have been in deep slumber or having a siesta for 10 years. If the Rule itself depicts that it would come into effect on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, the Rule that just stood on paper before publication was inchoate. On an inchoate Rule, the State has sought to impose certain conditions upon students.”

However, it clarified that liberty is reserved to the State Government to bring in any Circular/Corrigendum or even a law in tune with the rule now gazetted.

Before parting the court stated that Mandatory rural service is not alien to the medical profession in any part of the globe. Referring to countries where a similar system is operational, it said “The students/medical graduates who are the beneficiaries of the welfare of the State, in getting a seat under the Government quota, cannot be seen to escape this obligation of rural service.”

Further it said “The object behind the prescription of the mandate of rural service is ostensibly to provide better health care in rural, tribal or those difficult areas of the citizens of this country, who would have no means to reach a doctor. The students should become part of the public health programme of the State. It is a dream, that a day would come that medical graduates would themselves volunteer to render such service, in the rural areas and it is expected that the dream would shortly come true, so that the Society would become Egalitarian resulting in an 'Utopian Land'.”

Appearance: Senior Advocates B.C.Thiruvengadam, K.G.Raghavan, Advocates Manik.B.T, Brijesh Singh.M, Girishkumar R, Ramananda.A.D, Akash V.T, Vivekananda.S, Shreya S.Kumar for Petitioners.

CGC M.N.Kumar, for the Union of India.

Additional Advocate General R.Subramanya, a/w AAG Pramodhini Kishan, for the State.

Advocate N.Khetty, for National Medical Council.

Advocate N.K.Ramesh and M.S.Devaraju, for Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Sciences.

Advocate Ratna N.Shivayogimath, for Karnataka Medical Council.

Advocate R.Subramanya, for Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

Case Title: Dr Sharanya Mohan & Others AND Union of India & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7435 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.10079 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10297 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10374 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10379 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10381 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10751 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.13569 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.2137 OF 2022 (EDN – RES)

Click Here To Read/Download Order