Compulsory bond for PG medicos upheld SC Fixes Service Period At 2 Years, ₹20L For Breach
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:22.08.2019
The Supreme Court has upheld the compulsory bond condition imposed by states for students taking admission in PG and speciality courses in government medical colleges and asked the Centre to frame a policy to make it mandatory for them to serve in public hospitals in rural areas for a certain period after passing out.
Noting that the government spends huge money on each medical student student, a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta on Tuesday said the condition is not illegal and arbitrary and is meant to ensure that specialist healthcare is extended to rural areas.
As the conditions imposed by different states are not uniform and the compulsory service period varies from 2-5 years while the bond amount in case of violation is also different across states and goes up to ₹50 lakh, the court fixed the service period at two years and penalty at ₹20 lakh.
As per the conditions imposed by states, a student has to execute a bond at the time of admission to postgraduate and super speciality courses in government colleges that they would serve in public hospitals and health centres after completing the course.
The court asked the Centre and Medical Council of India to step in and frame a uniform policy to be applicable across the country. “Taking note of the fact that certain state governments have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the appellants (students) and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory bonds, we suggest that suitable steps be taken by Centre and MCI to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by doctors who are trained in government institutions,” it said.
So far Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal have imposed provision for compulsory service. Justifying their policy, some of the states contended that an amount of over ₹50 lakh is spent on each student per year for specialization and doctors are also given stipend of around ₹90,000 per month while the annual fee is less than ₹80,000.
“Huge infrastructure has to be developed and maintained for running medical colleges with post-graduate and super speciality courses. The amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison to private medical colleges. Reasonable stipend has to be paid to the doctors. Above all, the state governments have taken into account the need to provide healthcare to the people and scarcity of super specialists in their states. Consequently, a policy decision taken by the states to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of government assistance to complete their education cannot be termed arbitrary,” the bench said.
The apex court said the laudable objective behind policy is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections to have basic health services. “It is for the state to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty. No doubt the government is rendering this obligation by opening hospitals and health centres, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, and it has to provide all facilities to employ best of talents,” it said.
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:22.08.2019
The Supreme Court has upheld the compulsory bond condition imposed by states for students taking admission in PG and speciality courses in government medical colleges and asked the Centre to frame a policy to make it mandatory for them to serve in public hospitals in rural areas for a certain period after passing out.
Noting that the government spends huge money on each medical student student, a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta on Tuesday said the condition is not illegal and arbitrary and is meant to ensure that specialist healthcare is extended to rural areas.
As the conditions imposed by different states are not uniform and the compulsory service period varies from 2-5 years while the bond amount in case of violation is also different across states and goes up to ₹50 lakh, the court fixed the service period at two years and penalty at ₹20 lakh.
As per the conditions imposed by states, a student has to execute a bond at the time of admission to postgraduate and super speciality courses in government colleges that they would serve in public hospitals and health centres after completing the course.
The court asked the Centre and Medical Council of India to step in and frame a uniform policy to be applicable across the country. “Taking note of the fact that certain state governments have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the appellants (students) and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory bonds, we suggest that suitable steps be taken by Centre and MCI to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by doctors who are trained in government institutions,” it said.
So far Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal have imposed provision for compulsory service. Justifying their policy, some of the states contended that an amount of over ₹50 lakh is spent on each student per year for specialization and doctors are also given stipend of around ₹90,000 per month while the annual fee is less than ₹80,000.
“Huge infrastructure has to be developed and maintained for running medical colleges with post-graduate and super speciality courses. The amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison to private medical colleges. Reasonable stipend has to be paid to the doctors. Above all, the state governments have taken into account the need to provide healthcare to the people and scarcity of super specialists in their states. Consequently, a policy decision taken by the states to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of government assistance to complete their education cannot be termed arbitrary,” the bench said.
The apex court said the laudable objective behind policy is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections to have basic health services. “It is for the state to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty. No doubt the government is rendering this obligation by opening hospitals and health centres, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, and it has to provide all facilities to employ best of talents,” it said.
No comments:
Post a Comment