Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed for interim relief to stay the operation of the order directing such service. However, the Court has refused the interim relief citing the service as ‘a call for national duty’. 

Brief Facts

The petitioners were candidates selected for admission to post-graduate courses in State medical colleges. They were eligible for a concessional fee only after execution of separate bonds mandating one-year State service on completion of the course. The result for the final year examination of such courses was declared in August and September 2020.

On September 23, a list was published which directed the selected doctors to report at their respective hospitals/colleges. The selected doctors raised concerns as they were denied the right to fill their preferences. It also resulted in an allocation, unlike past academic year which were based on merit of the candidates.      

Therefore, a writ petition was filed by three doctors in the representative capacity of 92 other doctors. They prayed to set aside the allotment list and direct the State to follow a fair procedure. The plea for interim relief, inter alia, requested a stay on the operation of the placement order. 

Court’s Observations

The Court asserted that the nature of interim and principal relief demanded it to place reliance on a precedent. For the same, it has considered the Supreme Court decision in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra. The judgement dealt with situations wherein granting of interim relief would tantamount to granting of relief itself. It is imperative to consider such situation as it would leave no room for interpretation during hearing of the merits of the case. Therefore, the Apex Court observed that the interim relief would be granted only on availability of a strong prima facie case. The Coram must be satisfied that withholding of the interim relief shall jeopardize the sense of justice.

Further, the Court has stated another reason for denial of the interim relief. It stated that the grant of interim relief would be more unjust to the respondents than refusal would do to the petitioners. In light of the world-wide pandemic, there has been increase in requirement of medical assistance, especially in rural areas. It remarked- “Doctors like the petitioners and the others should regard the call for service to be rendered as a call for joining ‘national duty’, so as to reach out to the distressed and the needy.” 

Court’s Order

The order was pronounced by the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice G S Kulkarni. Although it refused the interim relief to the doctors, it has acknowledged the matter to be of utmost importance. Therefore, observing that it required ‘expeditious consideration’, the State has been directed to file a response by October 19, 2020. Further, it has also directed the petitioners, doctors, to report on duty at its earliest.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -