In a temporary relief to 335 doctors, the High Court of Karnataka has stayed the operation and the implementation of a recent notification, which had asked all doctors, who joined the postgraduate medical courses in Karnataka during 2020-21 or earlier and have completed the course, to register for online counselling to undergo one year compulsory government service.
Under private quota
Justice S.R. Krisnna Kumar passed the interim order on a petition filed by Suvetha P. and 334 others, who joined their PG medical courses under private/management/NRI quota seats and have begun practising on completing the course back in August 2023. The court made it clear that the interim order was s applicable only to the petitioners.
The petitioners have questioned the legality of the notification issued on July 17, 2024, by the Commissionerate of Health and Family Welfare Services asking the petitioners and similarly situated doctors to register on the portal for assigning them to compulsory government service.
It has been alleged in the petition that after the petitioners completed their course, they were arm-twisted by the authorities to release their credentials for allowing them to pursue either further studies or begin work.
It has been contended by the petitioners that the notification, issued under the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses (Amendment) Act, 2023, which came into force in January 29, 2024, is not applicable to them as they had completed their PG courses before the amendment.
Changes in provisions
It was also alleged by the petitioners that the government, in the 2023 amendment, made several changes to provisions in the original Act of 2012, giving exemption to certain category of doctors and making compulsory service only for existing vacancies specified by the government.
While the 2012 Act had offered salary almost equal to the minimum gross salary of a general duty doctor in the Health Department during compulsory service period, the 2023 amendment has substituted with the words “salary to be specified by the government,” the petitioners have pointed out.
