Supreme Court clarifies “in-service” doctor status for PG admissions in ESIC: Hemant Kumar Verma vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation (22 July 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 July 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J

Can junior resident doctors, who are serving a bond after completing their MBBS, be considered equivalent to ‘in-service’ doctors for the purpose of reservation in post-graduate medical courses? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent case involving the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The court had to decide if junior residents were eligible for the same reservation benefits as Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II (IMO-II), who are considered ‘in-service’ doctors. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the distinction between these two categories of doctors and their eligibility for reservation in post-graduate medical courses. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, and A S Bopanna, J concurred.

Case Background

The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) runs medical institutions where students, after completing their undergraduate medical courses, are required to serve as junior residents. These junior residents typically serve a bond period. The ESIC also recruits Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II (IMO-II) through a selection process. A key difference is that ESIC provides a 50% reservation for ‘in-service’ doctors for post-graduate seats in its medical institutions. While IMO-II doctors are included in the ‘in-service’ category, junior residents are not. The petitioners, who are junior residents, sought to be included in the ‘in-service’ quota for post-graduate courses, arguing that they perform similar duties and have similar responsibilities as IMO-II doctors.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners, junior resident doctors at ESIC medical colleges, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They sought a direction to the ESIC to declare them eligible as “in-service” doctors for the purpose of reservation in post-graduate (PG) courses. The petitioners also requested the court to extend the 50% “in-service” reservation for PG courses to them. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after their representations to the ESIC were not addressed.

Legal Framework

The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, under which the ESIC was established, was amended by Act 18 of 2010, inserting Section 59(B). This section allows the ESIC to establish medical colleges, nursing colleges, and training institutions for its employees to improve the quality of services. The ESIC Staff and Condition of Service Regulations, 1959, govern the service conditions of regular medical officers like IMO-II. The ESIC Residency Scheme, revised on 2 February 2018 and 24 November 2020, governs the terms of service for junior residents.

The legal framework considered by the court includes:

• Section 59(B) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act 1948 which empowers the ESIC to establish medical institutions.
• ESIC Staff and Condition of Service Regulations 1959: Governs the service conditions of regular medical officers like IMO-II.
• ESIC Residency Scheme (revised on 2 February 2018 and 24 November 2020): Governs the terms of service for junior residents.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that junior residents are ‘in-service’ doctors, and therefore, should be treated on par with IMO-II doctors for reservation benefits in post-graduate courses.
• They contended that the qualifications, entitlements, duties, responsibilities, and pay scales of junior residents and IMO-II doctors are essentially the same. The only difference lies in the mode of appointment.
• The petitioners emphasized that while IMO-II doctors are appointed through a selection process, junior residents are directly appointed due to the bond they serve after completing their MBBS.
• The petitioners argued for institutional preference, citing previous judgments that recognized reservation through institutional preference in post-graduate medical education. They relied on Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India and Yatin Kuma Jasubahi v. State of Gujarat.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that there is a clear distinction between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors (IMO-II).
• They stated that junior residents are serving a bond condition after completing their studies in ESIC medical colleges and are not recruited in the same manner as IMO-II doctors.
• The respondents highlighted that medical officers (IMO-II) are governed by the ESIC Staff and Condition of Service Regulations 1959, while junior residents are governed by the ESIC Residency Scheme.
• The respondents clarified that the reservation for in-service candidates is an incentive for IMO-II doctors who will serve the institution after completing their post-graduate course until retirement, whereas junior residents are not bound to serve after their post-graduate studies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the Petitioners/Junior Resident Doctors are eligible “in-service” doctors of ESIC/ESIS for the purposes of inclusion in reservation for PG courses.
2. Whether the 50% “in-service” doctors reservation for PG courses should be extended to the Junior Resident Doctors serving in ESIC/ESIS institutions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 59(B) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act 1948: Empowered the ESIC to establish medical institutions.
• ESIC Staff and Condition of Service Regulations 1959: Governs the service conditions of regular medical officers like IMO-II.
• ESIC Residency Scheme (revised on 2 February 2018 and 24 November 2020): Governs the terms of service for junior residents.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [1984] 3 SCC 654* and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [2003] 11 SCC 146* to reiterate that institutional preference in post-graduate medical admissions is permissible and constitutional.
• The Court also relied on Yatin Kuma Jasubahi v. State of Gujarat [2019] 10 SCC 16* to hold that institutional preference is permissible even after the introduction of NEET.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the distinction between the nature of employment of junior residents and IMO-II doctors. The court emphasized that junior residents are contractual employees serving a bond, while IMO-II doctors are regular employees recruited through a selection process. This difference in the mode of appointment and the terms of service was crucial in the Court’s reasoning.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretations and the specific terms of service governing the two categories of doctors, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

The Court considered the arguments that the duties and responsibilities of junior residents and IMO-II doctors are similar. However, the court held that the mode of appointment and the tenure of the posts vary significantly. The court stated:

“The crucial difference between junior residents and IMO- II is that while the former is a contractual post where the doctors are employed directly due to the bond condition on the completion of the MBBS degree, the latter is a permanent post.”

The Court also noted that the reservation for in-service candidates is an incentive for IMO-II doctors who will serve the institution until retirement. The Court observed:

“The reservation for in-service candidates is an incentive and an added benefit to the IMO-II doctors who will be serving in the respondent-institution till superannuation.”

The Court clarified that the decision to provide institutional preference lies within the policy domain of the ESIC and the Court cannot issue a mandamus to direct the ESIC to conduct admissions through institutional preference. The Court stated:

“However, this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondent to conduct admissions through institutional preference. The decision of whether or not to provide institutional preference solely lies with the respondent-authority since it falls within the realm of policy.”

Key Takeaways

• Junior resident doctors serving a bond are not equivalent to ‘in-service’ doctors for the purpose of reservation in post-graduate medical courses.
• The mode of appointment and tenure of posts are crucial factors in determining eligibility for ‘in-service’ reservation.
• The decision to provide institutional preference in admissions lies within the policy domain of the concerned authority, and courts cannot issue a mandamus to direct such policies.
• The judgment highlights the differences in the service conditions between contractual employees (junior residents) and permanent employees (IMO-II) in ESIC institutions.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that junior resident doctors serving a bond are not equivalent to ‘in-service’ doctors for the purpose of reservation in post-graduate medical courses. This judgment clarifies the distinction between contractual and permanent employees in the context of reservation policies in medical education. It also reinforces that the decision to provide institutional preference lies within the policy domain of the concerned authority, and courts cannot issue a mandamus to direct such policies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that junior resident doctors are not equivalent to ‘in-service’ doctors for the purpose of reservation in post-graduate medical courses. The Court emphasized the differences in the mode of appointment, tenure, and service conditions between junior residents and regularly recruited medical officers. The Court also clarified that the decision to provide institutional preference lies within the policy domain of the ESIC.