24 Jun 2022 6:56 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Friday asked Employees State Insurance Corporation to confirm if the term of the bond for doctors who have completed MBBS from ESIC-run institutions to serve such institutions have been changed to one year from five years.The Court has sought an affidavit from the ESIC in this regard.A vacation bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia was considering a...
The Supreme Court on Friday asked Employees State Insurance Corporation to confirm if the term of the bond for doctors who have completed MBBS from ESIC-run institutions to serve such institutions have been changed to one year from five years.
The Court has sought an affidavit from the ESIC in this regard.
A vacation bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia was considering a writ filed by Junior Resident Doctors of ESIC hospitals seeking to be included in 50% in service doctors quota for PG courses.
In the hearing today, Advocate Sachin Patil for the petitioners submitted that as per ESIC's policy, only IMO-II (doctors who are recruited by ESIC) working in the ESIC institutions have been given 50% reservation in PG medical seats in the ESIC Hospitals. He further argued that the Junior Resident Doctors have even executed a bond of serving Hospitals of ESIC as in service candidates for the period of five years.
However, the counsel for the ESIC countered the submission regarding 5 year bond-term and submitted that the tenure has been changed following a decision taken on November 24, 2020.
Contending that the tenure of bond was reduced from 5 years to 1 year, counsel said,
"The bond now has to be given only for 1 year. They are basically alumni of ESIC hospital & they're only required to serve for 1 year. Now there's another cadre of doctors. NBE provides for a 50% quota for the in-house doctors."
Considering the submissions made by the counsel, the bench asked ESIC's counsel to place on record by way of an affidavit the submission with regards to change in the policy of bond.
It was been stated in the plea that, "Though Petitioners are similarly placed junior resident doctors like IMO- II but they are not held to be eligible for said 50% quota of ESIC Hospitals. Thus the policy of ESIC is arbitrary and discriminatory which violets Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that ESIC has been granting benefit of reservation to one set of in service candidates and denying said benefit to another set of in service candidates, when both are at par and similarly placed."
The resident doctors in the petition had also contended that they are entitled for the reservation of PG seats in the ESIC medical Institutions on account of institutional reservation/preference system since they are the alumni of the same institution.
Case Title: Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors. v ESIC & Ors