That a government doctor with a post-graduate degree, who has availed himself in-service quota for admission to a super-speciality course, must remain indebted to the government for the rest of his official life, even in the absence of any posting after completion of course, is not an acceptable proposition, said the High Court of Karnataka.

A Division Bench comprising justice Anu Sivaraman and justice Venkatesh Naik T. made these observations while declining to interfere with a single judge’s 2023 order setting aside disciplinary action against a government doctor.

No posting

The single judge had held that disciplinary proceedings against Adnan Saeed were unjustified, as he resigned only after the government failed to provide him a posting even three years after he completed a super-speciality course under the in-service quota. Although the quota required candidates to remain in service until superannuation and barred voluntary retirement or resignation, the court found fault with the action initiated against him for no fault of his.

Dr. Saeed was appointed as an Intensive Care Medical Officer at Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI) in 2009. In 2015, he was granted a seat at the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (KMIO) as an in-service candidate to pursue MCh in Surgical Oncology. As per government rules, Dr. Saeed executed a bond mandating compulsory government service until retirement.

After completing his three-year course in 2018, Dr. Saeed reported to the government seeking posting. However, despite his repeated requests, the government failed to assign him a new role. For over three years, he received no salary and no posting. Frustrated, he resigned in August 2021. Instead of accepting his resignation, the BMCRI refused and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for alleged unauthorised absence, leading Dr. Saeed to approach the High Court.

The Bench observed that the State’s contention that Dr. Saeed was guilty of unauthorised absence was “not acceptable” since the doctor had reported for duty but it was the government that failed to give him suitable posting.

“A super-speciality qualified doctor cannot be expected to remain idle and not work when no posting orders are provided to him, in spite of reporting to the government for duty and seeking the same,” the Bench said in response to the government’s claim that Dr. Saeed had left the country to work abroad.

In the absence of any posting orders being issued to Dr. Saeed, the government and the BMCRI cannot raise these contentions in these proceedings, the Bench said.

What apex court says

Pointing out that the apex court in the 2019 case of the Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents & others vs Union of India, had not considered the validity of the condition to serve the government till retirement was not considered, the Bench observed, “We are of the opinion that the condition that a post-graduate doctor, who has availed of the in-service quota for admission to a super-speciality course, must remain indebted to the government for the rest of his official life, even in the absence of any posting orders, is not an acceptable proposition.”