A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was adjudicating a Writ praying for Writ of Certiorari to call for the record the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine pertaining to the Order directing the Post-Graduate Doctors to report to duty stations allotted to them.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition referred to a matter of Posting/Appointment Orders of the Non-Service Post Graduate Doctors to Urban Primary Health Centre (UPHC) and Additional Primary Health Centre (APHC), issued by the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine to whom, they are bound in contract. The orders were issued after taking into consideration of their choices and the Bond Signed by them during appointment process. The government wanted to use non-service PG doctors' services for the welfare of the poor, hence their services are used in UPHC and APHC, which have the facilities necessary to meet the PG doctors' degree of education. The government prepared positing order based on this and brought into force, which was challenged by the doctors-petitioners before the court to be quashed for being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the appointments and postings made by the respondents-government were inappropriate given the doctors' training and specialisation levels and that placing them in PHCs violated the Undertaking they had made to the court in an earlier writ petition, W.P.No.31089 of 2022. They further submitted that the petitioners are not averse to working in PHCs in absence of essential facilities according to their speciality and if they were sent to PHCs without any facilities, the petitioners will not be able to perform their area of specialization and it will be against the interest of not only the petitioners, but also the general public who will not be able to get the specialized treatment in the absence of any facilities. They also submitted that in-service doctors are never sent to UPHC or APHC and their services are always utilized in hospitals, where the facilities are available. Hence, there was a clear discrimination shown against the non-service doctors.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Leaned Additional Government Pleader for respondent 1-3 asserted that the State Government is very serious about providing good facilities to poor people in the villages and rural areas and utilize the services of the PG doctors to provide the best treatment and that in-service PG doctors are being sent to UPHCs and APHCs and there is no discrimination shown between the in-service and non-service PG doctors. The immense amount of money is spent on petitioner and similar skilled doctors but in order to avoid working the bond period in APHC or UPHC to which options were granted by them and thereby ending their bond period without rendering any service to the State Government. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court laid the question of Arbitrariness, unjust, illegal order issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Government of Tamil Nadu. The Court acknowledged that the petitioners have completed post-graduation in various specialities and they have also executed a bond and undertaken to render service for two years for which the State Government has spent a lot of money towards these doctors and these doctors must necessarily give back something to the society during the bond period by taking up appointments/postings in the places allotted and opted by those doctors at the time of counselling.
The court further noted that the Government, if fails to utilize the services of the petitioners within the bond period, will lose the chance of making use of the specialization that has been gained by these doctors, who have completed post-graduation in various disciplines. The doctors, who have completed post-graduation, must be allotted work commensurate with their qualifications and specialization. They cannot be sent to some basic PHCs which do not have any major facilities but, as in the instant case, the respondents had created UPHCs and APHCs at the village level and in the rural areas and the State Government was very serious about providing best facilities to poor patients belonging to those areas. The facilities that are presently available may not cater to all the specializations attained by the petitioners. However, a PG doctor cannot be permitted to state that he will work in a UPHC and or APHC only if the specialization achieved by him is available.
The court further noted that it is the moral duty and the legal obligation of the non-service PG doctors to render service during the bond period. The petitioners were never forced to join the PHCs and they were given the option and accordingly, they opted for UPHCs and APHCs. After having so opted, the petitioners could not be allowed to wriggle out by stating that they do not have the necessary facilities in those PHCs. The patients look at doctors who treat them like gods when a precious life is saved and this Court expects doctors to maintain that standard and render service. The PG doctors cannot be heard to say that they will work only if all the facilities are available.
Hence, the Court could not find any ground to interfere with the appointment/posting order issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and as a result, all these writ petitions stood dismissed. The petitioners were directed to report to duty in the Centres allotted to them on or before 10.02.2023.
Decision of the Court:
The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned Appointment/Posting Order issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine was upheld and the Petitioners were directed to report to duty.
Case Title: Dr. Sri Hari Vignesh. R vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Case No.: W.P.No.1571 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy
Advocate for the Respondent:
- Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, Additional Government Pleader (R1-3)
- Ms. Subaranjani Ananth, Central Government Standing Counsel. (R4)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
