HEMANT KUMAR VERMA & ORS. versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 184, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
HEMANT KUMAR VERMA & ORS.
v.
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2022)
JULY 22, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Reservation in Post Graduate Medical Course
– Junior Resident Doctors and Regular ESIC Doctors – Petitioners
are Junior Resident doctors – The respondent-ESIC recruits
Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II (IMO-II) through written
examination and interview – ESIC provides a fifty per cent
reservation for “in-service” doctors in the post-graduate seats in
institutions run by ESIC – While the post of IMO-II is included within
the ambit of ‘in-service’ doctors, the junior doctors are not –  ESIC
invited applications from ‘in-service’ doctors of ESI Medical colleges
– The petitioner made several representations to the respondent for
consideration in the ‘in-service’ quota – Since, there was no response
from the respondent, the petitioners approached Supreme Court – Held:
The crucial difference between junior residents and IMO- II is that
while the former is a contractual post where the doctors are employed
directly due to the bond condition on the completion of the MBBS
degree, the latter is a permanent post – The reservation for
‘in-service’ candidates is an incentive and an added benefit to the
IMO-II doctors who will be serving in the respondent-institution till
superannuation – There is a clear distinction in law between junior
resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors – The
‘in-service’ quota is, therefore, justifiably made available to the latter
category – The petitioners cannot claim parity with regularly
recruited insurance medical officers in seeking the benefit of the
in-service quota.
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146
: [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 – followed.
Yatin Kuma Jasubahi v. State of Gujarat (2019) 10 SCC
1 : [2019] 12 SCR 848; Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
(1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 - relied on.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 184
184
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
Case Law Reference
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152
followed
Para 6
[2019] 12 SCR 848
relied on
Para 6
[1984] 3 SCR 942
relied on
Para 9
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
444 of 2022.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Advs. for the
Petitioners.
Manish Kumar Saran, Shivam Singh, Nirvikar Singh, Harsh
Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The respondent - Employees State Insurance Corporation1 - is
a statutory body created under the Employees’ State Insurance Act 19482.
Act 18 of 2010 inserted Section 59(B) in the Act of 1948 which stipulates
that the Corporation may establish medical colleges, nursing colleges,
and training institutions for its employees to improving the quality of
services provided under the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme. The
petitioners are junior residents who have completed their undergraduate
medical course at medical institutions run by the ESIC. Undergraduate
medical students pursuing their education in institutions conducted by
the ESIC have to serve in the institutions as junior residents. The
petitioners were required to serve a five year bond as junior residents.
2. The respondent-institutions recruit Insurance Medical Officers
Grade-II3 through a written examination followed by an interview. ESIC
provides a fifty per cent reservation for “in-service” doctors in the post-
graduate
seats available in medical institutions run by ESIC. While the
post of IMO-II is included within the ambit of ‘in-service’ doctors, the
junior doctors are not. The respondent issued a notice on 10 November
2021 inviting applications from eligible ‘in-service’ doctors of ESI Medical
colleges. The petitioners made representations on 11 February 2022, 4
1 “ESIC/ respondent-institute”
2 “Act of 1948"
3 ‘IMO-II”
HEMANT KUMAR VERMA v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
March 2022, and 25 April 2022 to the respondent-institution seeking to
be considered in the ‘in-service’ quota for DNB courses. Since there
was no response from the respondent-institution, the petitioners have
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. The petitioners’
have sought the following prayers:
 “(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order of direction to Respondents to declare that the Petitioners/
Junior Resident Doctors are eligible “in-service” doctors of ESIC/
ESIS for the purposes of inclusion in reservation for PG courses.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order,
direction to the Respondents to extend the 50% “in-service”
doctors reservation for PG courses to the Junior Resident Doctors
serving in ESIC/ESIS institutions.”
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that that junior resident doctors
and persons working as IMO-II possess the same qualifications,
entitlements, duties, and responsibilities. However, while reservation in
postgraduate education is provided to the latter in the “in-service”
category, it is not provided to the former.
4. The Deputy Medical Commissioner (Medical Education) has
filed an affidavit before this Court on behalf of the respondent explaining
the distinction between the junior resident doctors, such as the petitioners,
and the regular medical officers who are recruited by the ESIC. The
affidavit states as follows:
(i)
Candidates who pursue their undergraduate degree courses
in these colleges are required to execute a bond to serve the
ESIC hospitals for a stipulated period. Until 2017, the period
of the bond was five years, after which it was reduced to
three years.
(ii) By a Memorandum dated 28 July 2020, the period of the bond
was reduced to one year for undergraduate MBBS/BDS
students at the ESIC medical and dental colleges. Para 2 of
the Memorandum, inter alia, contains the following stipulation:
“2.
The reduction in Bond duration and Bond amount would
be prospective per-se, but in the following manner:
2.1
The benefit of reduced Bond period & Bond amount in
lieu, would also be extended to (i) all existing students
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
(MBBS/BDS); (ii) Fresh UG (MBBS/BDS) pass-outs;
and (ii) UG (MBBS/BDS) pass-outs already serving ESIC
under Bond.
2.2
In case of pass-outs already serving under Bond, if the
length of service rendered is in excess of 01 year, they
may be relieved without payment to ESIC for left over
Bond period.”
(iii) The petitioners completed their one year compulsory bond
period between 2019 and 2020. Though they were not under
any compulsion to serve beyond a year, as stipulated in the
Memorandum dated 28 July 2020, they have continued to serve
of their own volition.
(iv) The petitioners cannot be equated to IMO-II doctors to claim
the 50% reservation available to ‘in-service’ doctors for the
following reasons:
(a) Regular medical officers in ESIC are recruited by advertising
vacancies through the Recruitment Regulations of the post;
(b) The petitioners were serving the bond condition after
completion of their studies in ESIC medical colleges. Thus,
they are not recruited and cannot be called in-service doctors;
and
(c) The medical officers are governed by the ESIC Staff and
Condition of Service Regulations 1959. The leave and other
entitlements of the junior resident doctors are as stipulated in
the ESIC Residency Scheme. A revised ESIC Residency
Scheme was issued on 24 November 2020. Therefore, the
medical officers and the junior residents are recruited under
and are governed by distinct regulations.
5. We have heard Mr Sachin Patil, counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and Mr Manish Kumar Saran, counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
6. The contention of the petitioners is two-fold. One, the junior
residents are ‘in-service’ doctors. They must thus be treated on parity
with IMO-II doctors for the provision of reservation benefits. The
qualification, entitlement, duties, responsibilities, and pay scale of the
junior residents and IMO-II doctors are the same. The only difference
HEMANT KUMAR VERMA v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
between the two categories is the mode of appointment. While the junior
residents are appointed directly because of the bond that they are serving,
the IMO-II doctors are appointed through a selection process. Two,
junior residents are eligible for 50% reservation in respondent institutions
on institutional preference. The Courts have recognized reservation
through institutional preference in post-Graduate medical education in
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India4 and Yatin Kuma Jasubahi v.
State of Gujarat5.
7. The petitioners completed their undergraduate courses from
ESIC medical/dental colleges and have already served out their one
year compulsory bond period. The reduction in the bond period which
was brought about on 28 July 2020 was also extended to all existing
students as well as undergraduate (MBBS/BDS) pass-outs who were
serving ESIC under bond. In view of the Memorandum dated 28 July
2020, it was open to the petitioners to leave after the completion of one
year of junior residency.
8. On 2 February 2018, the revised ESIC Residency Scheme for
UG pass-outs was issued. The scheme provides that the duties and
responsibilities of the junior residents will be fixed by the competent
authority. It mentions that “they will be required to perform such work
as may be needed in the legitimate interest of patient care in ESI health
system (ESIS/ESIC) including Hospitals and dispensaries anywhere in
India.” The memorandum
further states that the pay structure for the
junior residents is similar to the scale for the junior residents under the
Central Residency Scheme. The IMO-II doctors are governed by the
ESIC Staff and Condition of Service Regulations 1959. The crucial
difference between junior residents and IMO- II is that while the former
is a contractual post where the doctors are employed directly due to the
bond condition on the completion of the MBBS degree, the latter is a
permanent post. Therefore, the mode of appointment and tenure of the
posts vary. The IMO-IIs’ who pursue their post graduate education as
in-service candidates will serve the respondent institution after completion
of their post-graduate course. However, in the case of junior residents,
since they are contractual employees who are serving the bond, they
are not bound to serve the respondent-institution after the completion of
their post-graduate studies. The reservation for in-service candidates is
an incentive and an added benefit to the IMO-II doctors who will be
4 (2003) 11 SCC 146
5 (2019) 10 SCC 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
serving in the respondent-institution till superannuation. In such
circumstances, the argument of the petitioners that the junior residents
and IMO-II doctors are at par with each other for the former to be
treated as “in-service” doctors does not hold merit.
9. In Saurabh Chaudri (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court
approved reservation based on ‘institutional preference’ as set out in
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India6. In Yatin Kuma Jasubahi (supra), a
writ petition was filed challenging institutional preference in admission
to postgraduate medical courses. It was the contention of the petitioners,
in that case, that though institutional reservation had been upheld by this
Court in Pradeep Jain (supra) and Saurabh Chaudri (supra), it would
not be permissible because of the introduction of an All India examination
in the form of NEET. Rejecting this argument, the three-Judge Bench of
this Court held that post- graduate medical admissions through institutional
preference are only made to candidates based on the rank received in
the NEET examination. This Court in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) and
Pradeep Jain (supra) held that institutional preference in post-graduate
medical admissions is permissible and constitutional. However, this Court
cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondent to conduct admissions
through institutional preference. The decision of whether or not to provide
institutional preference solely lies with the respondent-authority since
it
falls within the realm of policy.
10. On the above premises, there is a clear distinction in law
between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors.
The in-service quota is, therefore, justifiably made available to the latter
category. The petitioners cannot claim parity with regularly recruited
insurance medical officers in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota.
11. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Petition dismissed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)
6 (1984) 3 SCC 654
HEMANT KUMAR VERMA v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]