Rule 11 not applicable to doctors already in government service, HC clarifies
Bhopal: In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that in-service doctors in the state are not required to execute a separate rural service bond after completing a postgraduate medical course. The ruling provides clarity on the applicability of Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Autonomous Medical and Dental Postgraduate Courses Admission Rules, 2017.
Bench Interprets Admission Rules
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Rushia and Pradeep Mittal made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a doctor seeking release from a rural service bond and the return of her original certificates. The court held that Rule 11 applies only to selected candidates and not to in-service doctors already employed by the government.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had completed her Post Graduate Diploma in Anaesthesia in March 2017 and was issued a certificate by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University, Jabalpur. She was also registered with the Medical Council in July 2017 and later approached the court seeking exemption from rural service obligations.
Petitioner’s Argument on Bond Validity
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that no rural posting order was issued to her within three months of the declaration of her PG Diploma results. Citing the Pre-PG Rules, 2014, she contended that the bond automatically becomes void if such an order is not issued within the stipulated time.
State Government’s Stand
The State government countered the plea by stating that the petitioner’s original certificates had already been returned in compliance with an interim court order passed in August 2017. It further submitted that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to her clearly mentioned the requirement of completing one year of compulsory rural service after the PG course.
Employment Status Comes Under Scrutiny
The court noted that the petitioner was already appointed as a medical officer in Ratlam in December 2016 and was in government service during her PG Diploma. The bench also observed that the petitioner had concealed this crucial fact in her petition, which went against the principle of approaching the court with “clean hands.”
Court’s Key Observations
Interpreting Rule 11, the bench held that since the petitioner was an in-service doctor enrolled in a PG course while employed, she was not required to submit a separate rural service bond. The court clarified that such doctors are expected to return to their parent service after completing their studies.
Plea Dismissed with Clarification
While dismissing the plea due to concealment of material facts, the High Court ruled that if the petitioner wishes to rejoin the health department as a medical officer, she must serve in rural or remote areas in accordance with service conditions. The judgment provides important guidance on bond obligations for in-service doctors across the state.
