Court holds that doctors cannot be compelled to serve till retirement without postings; directs quashing of domestic inquiry and upholds doctors' fundamental right to livelihood
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T) has declared the bond mandating compulsory government service till retirement for doctors pursuing super-specialty courses under the in-service quota as unreasonable and liable to be quashed. The bench held that doctors cannot be expected to remain idle without posting orders and that the government's failure to provide suitable postings invalidates any disciplinary action for alleged unauthorized absence.
The case arose when Dr. Adnan Saeed, an Intensive Care Medical Officer at Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI), after completing his M.Ch Surgical Oncology course at Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (KMIO) under deputation, was left without any posting for more than three years. Despite reporting for duty and requesting posting orders, he was neither posted nor paid salary. After waiting for years, he tendered his resignation, which the BMCRI refused to accept, alleging breach of the bond that required compulsory service till retirement. Subsequently, the institute initiated a domestic inquiry against Dr. Saeed for unauthorized absence.
Dr. Saeed challenged the government order mandating lifelong service and the disciplinary actions before the High Court, which initially ruled in his favor, quashing the bond and the inquiry. The state and BMCRI filed writ appeals against this order. The High Court, after considering submissions from both sides and relevant precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in the Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents vs. Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 607, upheld the quashing of the bond and disciplinary inquiry but modified the relief regarding salary payment and recovery.
Key observations by the Court include:
1. Unreasonableness of Lifelong Service Bond: The Court observed that while compulsory service bonds for super-specialty doctors are legal, the term must be reasonable. The Supreme Court had previously suggested a compulsory service period of two years with an exit option or payment of compensation. However, the bond here mandated service till retirement with no voluntary retirement allowed, which was held to be excessive and unreasonable.
2. Failure to Provide Posting Orders: Dr. Saeed had duly reported to the government after completing his course and repeatedly requested postings. The absence of posting orders was not his fault. The Court held that doctors cannot be penalized for unauthorized absence when no posting orders were issued, especially since the bond's condition to serve till retirement presupposes availability of a post.
3. Fundamental Rights of Doctors: The Court emphasized that refusal to accept Dr. Saeed's resignation and initiation of disciplinary action violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) and 21 (right to livelihood) of the Constitution. Doctors cannot be subjected to indefinite waiting periods without postings and must be allowed reasonable exit options.
4. Domestic Inquiry and Salary Payment: The Court quashed the domestic inquiry initiated for unauthorized absence, affirming that the government's failure to provide posting orders absolved Dr. Saeed of any misconduct. However, the Court vacated the order directing the government to pay salary for the period without postings and to recover losses through an inquiry, noting that the government should not be compelled to pay salary for a period when no posting existed.
5. Compliance with Court Orders: A contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the previous single judge's order directing salary payment and inquiry was closed, as the High Court revised those directions. The Court also reprimanded BMCRI for threatening Dr. Saeed with further disciplinary proceedings and demanded adherence to judicial orders.
This judgment provides critical clarity on the scope and limits of compulsory service bonds for doctors trained under in-service quotas in government medical institutions. It reiterates the necessity of reasonable terms in such bonds, including sensible exit clauses, and safeguards the fundamental rights of doctors to livelihood and professional freedom. The ruling directs government authorities to ensure prompt and reasonable postings for super-specialty doctors after completion of their courses and cautions against punitive actions when government lapses cause absence from duty.
Legal experts believe this judgment will have far-reaching implications for medical education policies and service conditions of government doctors across India, compelling states to revisit and rationalize their bond conditions to align with constitutional principles and Supreme Court guidance.
Bottom Line:
Bond mandating compulsory government service till retirement for doctors pursuing super-specialty courses declared unreasonable and liable to be quashed. Doctors cannot be expected to remain idle without posting orders from the government.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India; Karnataka Civil Services Rules; Government Order dated 07.08.2013 governing in-service super-specialty candidates
Dr. Adnan Saeed v. Vandita Sharma, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972599
