Super Speciality Doctor Can't Be Bound By Bond To Serve Govt Till Retirement When No Posting Given: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a government bond requiring a doctor to serve till retirement, especially when no posting orders were provided after completion of a super-specialty course, amounts to an unreasonable condition that cannot be enforced. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330]The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T noted in the order that...
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a government bond requiring a doctor to serve till retirement, especially when no posting orders were provided after completion of a super-specialty course, amounts to an unreasonable condition that cannot be enforced. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330]
The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T noted in the order that the doctor-petitioner, though he completed his M. Ch Surgical Oncology course through in-service quota in 2018, was not granted posting for over 3 years despite reporting for duty soon after the course completion. Pertinently, the door had executed a bond which mandated compulsory government service till retirement with no voluntary retirement eligibility.
“… in the absence of any posting orders being issued to the respondent, the appellants cannot raise these contentions in these proceedings. It is not on account of any fault of the respondent that appropriate posting orders as provided in the Bond and the Government Order were not made available to the respondent. The respondent, a Super Specialty Qualified Doctor cannot be expected to remain idle and not work when no posting orders are provided to him, even in spite of reporting to the Government for duty and seeking the same”.
The court further held that the condition in the bond requiring a doctor to remain indebted to the Government for life, particularly when no posting orders were provided, cannot be countenanced.
“…In any view of the matter, since the respondent had reported for duty and had not been issued with any posting orders, the Government or the Institute from which he was relieved, cannot now contend that he was guilty of the offence of unauthorised absence from service from the Institution in which he had not been posted by the Government. The contention that there is an automatic resumption of service under the Institution from which he was relieved also cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case…”, the court clarified that there can't be unauthoirsed absence when no posting was given.
The single judge bench of the High Court had earlier allowed the writ petition in April 2023, quashing the disciplinary notices and directing salary payment for the period of no posting. This order was challenged by the State and BMCRI in writ appeals. Along with this, a contempt petition was filed by the doctor alleging non-compliance of the single judge bench order.
The petitioner-doctor, who was appointed at Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI) in 2009, subsequently completed his probation in 2011. Thereafter, he was granted a seat at Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (KMIO) in 2015 to pursue the surgical oncology course. He reported back for duty in 2018 after the course but since no posting was given till 2021 August, he resigned from BMCRI. BMCRI refused to accept the said resignation, and initiated disciplinary proceedings.
The Division Bench of the High Court, while disposing of the appeal, also highlighted that the apex court in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents v. Union of India (2019), while upholding bonds for compulsory government service, only directed States to consider a two-year compulsory service period. The condition of service till retirement was not considered by the Apex Court in the said case, the court noted.
Hence, the High Court upheld the quashing of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Saeed as well as the direction to accept his resignation.
The court, hence, while upholding the single judge bench order partly, added a few modifications to the same. The direction to pay the Doctor his salary for the three-year period without posting was set aside, along with the direction to the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry and recover the loss caused to the government in this behalf.
The Civil Contempt Petition was closed in view of the disposal of the writ appeals.
Case Title: Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors.
Case No: CCC No.933/2023 along with WA No.928/2023 & WA No.114/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330