The Allahabad High Court has held that a doctor who pursues postgraduate medical education at a government institution at subsidized rates cannot escape a compulsory government service bond merely because of administrative delays in offering a posting after completing the education.

At the same time, the Court held that a doctor cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the mandatory counselling process for allocation of government service

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary conducted the counseling and partly allowed a petition filed by a doctor who had completed her MD (Transfusion Medicine) at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI), Lucknow.

Case in brief

The petitioner had completed her MBBS in 2018 and subsequently pursued her postgraduate course at SGPGI. On June 2, 2022, she executed a compulsory government service bond requiring her to render 2 years of government medical service after completion of her postgraduate course.

Under the bond, the government was required to provide her government service within 3 months of successful completion of the course. In the event of failure to serve, she was liable to pay ₹40 lakh, with a first lien on her certificates.

After completing her MD in 2025, the petitioner was selected for a one-year PDCC course at SGPGI. An NOC was issued by the authorities for pursuing the course.

She completed the PDCC on May 1, 2026. Thereafter, she sought counselling for her compulsory bond service. She was, however, given a short-term Senior Resident posting at SGPGI from May 2 to July 29, 2026.

The State subsequently issued an office order dated August 12, 2026, allotting her to the Kalyan Singh Super Specialty Institute (KSSSCI).

The petitioner moved the High Court that since the government had failed to provide her a posting within 3 months of completion of her course, her bond obligation stood discharged.

She also contended that the authorities had failed to conduct the mandatory counselling contemplated under the relevant Government Orders.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had accepted the conditions of the NOC under which the period spent pursuing the PDCC would not count towards her compulsory service.

It also maintained that there was no provision under the Uttar Pradesh framework providing for automatic discharge from the bond merely because of administrative delay.

High Court's observations

The High Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the delay itself had extinguished her bond obligation.

The Court noted that she had accepted the NOC conditions and had opted to pursue the PDCC rather than joining the ordinary batch stream. Having accepted those conditions, she could not subsequently take a contrary position.

The Bench observed that she could not "blow hot and cold" or "approbate and reprobate".

"Having availed the benefit of the NOC on these terms, it is not open to her to now approbate the advantage of pursuing a further specialization while reprobating the very condition on which that advantage was extended", the Court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision upholding compulsory service bonds as a quid pro quo for subsidized medical education, the Court held that the petitioner could not treat a little over 3 months of administrative delay as extinguishing her obligation.

The Bench also noted the public interest involved in compulsory government service, observing that the State invests in medical education infrastructure and that medical services provided through government hospitals are connected with Article 21 of the Constitution.

"We also note that the laudable objective with which the State Governments have introduced compulsory service bonds is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such any administrative delay of a miniscule period of time to offer for the said service cannot be faulted with", the bench said.

The Court, however, found merit in the petitioner's grievance that she had not been given an opportunity to participate in the mandatory counselling process.

It noted that the counselling notification dated June 1, 2026, relied upon by the authorities, concerned NEET-PG 2022 MD/MS and NEET-PF 2023 Diploma candidates, whereas the petitioner belonged to the NEET-PG 2021 MD/MS batch.

Thus, the petitioner had never been given an opportunity to participate in the counselling process and the portal had not been made available to her batch.

The Court held that the condition in her NOC requiring her to be accommodated after the later batch did not take away her right to participate in the mandatory counselling contemplated under the relevant Government Orders.

The August 12 office order also did not demonstrate that she had been given such an opportunity.

Accordingly, the Court directed the DGME to conduct fresh counselling, requisition vacant seats in NMC-recognised government medical colleges and recognised teaching institutions, and provide the petitioner a choice of institution subject to availability.

The Court further directed that the petitioner's 89-day Senior Residency at SGPGI from May 2 to July 29, 2026 be counted and adjusted towards her two-year compulsory government service bond.

It noted that she had actually rendered service in a government hospital during the period and that the posting was a stop-gap arrangement following completion of her PDCC.

The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed.

The petitioner was directed to submit a comprehensive representation by September 27, 2026, following which the DGME was directed to conduct fresh counselling within four weeks.

Until counselling and accommodation, she may continue as Senior Resident at SGPGI. The Court clarified, however, that this arrangement would not confer any right or lien upon her to continue at SGPGI after the counselling exercise.

Advocates Ambrish Singh Yadav and Aditya Singh appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 .

Chief Standing Counsel Deepshikha appeared for the State-respondent(s),

Advocate Shubham Tripathi appeared for respondent no.4

Case Title - Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742

Click Here To Read/Download Order