Three doctors filed petitions challenging the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine’s appointment procedures where appointment of the doctors as assistant surgeons was based on a bond agreement as per applicable laws.
The case brought by S Sahana Priyanka and two other persons was dismissed by Judge S M Subramaniam. The petitioners’ advocate argued that during the COVID-19 phase, their services were rendered.
Hence, this time frame of the COVID-19 pandemic was taken to configure an overall compulsion of two-year service under the terms and conditions of the bond.
Government’s View:
The government attorney said the government itself has reduced the time frame from two to one year by G.O. dated 27th October 2023. To comply with bond conditions, the petitioners are required to serve one year in any Government Medical hospital or college.
The government intended to give a guarantee to these doctors who received their post-graduate training at a minimum cost. It will also promote serving the underprivileged and impoverished.
The public, as observed by the Judge, has the right to anticipate that the medical professionals will use these training to help the poor, underprivileged, and sick people. During the candidates’ admission, signing a bond may provide a guarantee to needy and underprivileged patients, and easy access to postgraduate doctors.
Because these candidates are licensed and competent medical professionals, hence it was assumed that before signing these bonds, they must have read it carefully.
Fundamental Rights Involved
Article 21, as per the Judge guarantees quality medical care to any impoverished person admitted to government hospitals. These doctors were found violating the fundamental rights of citizens, who are needy in this matter.
Medicine is a noble profession, hence doctors are expected to follow the government regulations, as stated by the Judge. Even the medical colleges that these postgraduate candidates are attending are indirectly funded by the taxes that the poor people pay in different forms.
Judge’s Observations
The Judge believed that this attitude of doctors showcased neglect of public interest by the latter, which is unacceptable. If a candidate does not work after finishing their courses and signing their bond during admission, then it is a sheer violation of government orders and bond conditions.
Tamil Nadu government medical institutes have a significant shortage of doctors, hence this attitude by doctors leads to depriving quality of patient treatment.
The judge also said that lowering the bond term to one year was also not a justified act of the Government. The Judge ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession, for a further reduced period of the bond.
