Justice Viju Abraham observed:

“the obligation of a post-graduate students like the petitioners herein as per the Board condition is only from the date of publication of result for a period of one year. The period of Senior Residency as a bonded obligation has to start from the date of publication of the result irrespective of whether a posting could be granted soon after the publication of the result or thereafter. It is ordered accordingly.”

The Court was considering two writ petitions preferred by 23 post graduate medical professionals, who studied in Kerala and had executed a bond in favour of the state government that they would undergo continuous 1-year service as Senior Residents upon successful completion of course.

In one of the pleas, a prayer sought was for a declaration that the compulsory service bond is illegal arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights. However, referring to a 2018 Division Bench decision in Ayisha Beegam (Dr.) and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. that upheld validity of the bond, the Court declined to grant the relief. It, however, added:

“Even when I uphold the condition that the post-graduate students who are studying in Government Medical Colleges are bound to execute a bond and are bound to serve the Government service as Senior Resident for a period of one year, this Court cannot ignore the situation that the post-graduate doctors, are forced to sit idle without doing any service either to the Government or in the public sector, which both cater to the interests of the general public. This cannot go unnoticed by the Government.”

The petitioners had raised a grievance that the State had not been given them appointments for discharging their bond obligation while also retaining their course completion certificate, leading to a situation where are they sitting idle. They contended that the State had a reciprocal obligation to issue posting orders without undue delay. They relied on the prospectus and also sought for a declaration that the compulsory 1-year period would commence immediately upon passing the course.

The State opposed the pleas and contended that the service bond is a condition attached for providing concessional medical education provided by the government compared to high fees charged by private colleges. It was pointed out that petitioners belong to the 2022 batch and owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the admission to 2021 batch was delayed, just months before the admission to 2022 batch.

Since there were only 600 senior residency vacancies available and 1000 students complete the course that year, it was administratively impossible to provide postings immediately upon graduation. It was also submitted that Directorate of Medical Education has submitted a proposal to the government to create more posts to address the temporary shortage of vacancies created by overlap of the two batches.

The Court termed that the situation creates a “national waste” and opined that it cannot continue anymore:

“This has resulted in a situation where the post-graduate students after completing their studies have to sit idle at home for almost one year without doing any service to the society either in the Government sector or in a private sector. Said situation has occurred only due to the fact that the 2021 and 2022 batches completed the course at the very same time. If this situation is permitted to continue, naturally for the subsequent years also it will result in the post-graduate students sitting idle for months together without being given any posting, without having any stipend nor being able to work outside the Government service. I am of the view that this is a national waste since the post- graduate students are sitting idle without discharging any function, without providing any service to the public in Government or in a private sector.”

It the directed the government to consider creating more posts as to accommodate the petitioners or to relieve them from their obligatory service bond:

“the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the…Government to take an appropriate decision on the proposal submitted by the Directorate for creation of supernumerary posts so that petitioners are accommodated so that they complete their bonded obligation or in the alternative to relieve the petitioners from their bonded obligation since almost eight months have already passed after their completion of the bond and the publication of the result. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

Thus, it disposed of the plea.

Case Nos: WP(C) Nos. 25441 & 9651 of 2026

Case Titles: George Balu and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Baddevolu Priyanka and Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 539

Counsel for the petitioners: Renjith B. Marar, Lakshmi N. Kaimal, P. Rajkumar, Keshavraj Nair, Biju Vigneswar, Arun Poomulli, Abhiram S., Gaadha Suresh, Akshay Shibu, Fayas Muhammed S., Ananthapadmanabhan, Ashish Paul, Laxmisree Jayantha Kumar, Murali Krishna Prasad

Counsel for the respondents: P. Sreekumar (Sr.), S. Ganesh – SC – Kerala University Of Health Sciences, Asha Elizabeth Mathew – Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment