Supreme Court Rules on In-Service Reservation for Junior Resident Doctors in ESIC Institutions
The case of Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors. vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors. is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India concerning the eligibility of junior resident doctors for in-service reservation in postgraduate (PG) medical courses. The petitioners, who had completed their undergraduate medical studies at ESIC institutions and were serving as junior residents, challenged their exclusion from the 50% in-service reservation granted to Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II (IMO-II) in PG admissions.
Background of the Case
The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is a statutory body established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. Section 59(B) of the Act, inserted by the Act 18 of 2010, allows ESIC to set up medical and nursing colleges to improve the quality of medical services under the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (ESIS).
As per ESIC policy, undergraduate medical students who complete their degrees in ESIC institutions are required to serve as junior residents for a specified bond period. Initially, this bond was for five years, later reduced to three years, and subsequently to one year by a memorandum issued on July 28, 2020. The petitioners in this case had completed their one-year bond service but continued working voluntarily as junior residents.
The dispute arose when ESIC issued a notification on November 10, 2021, inviting applications for PG admissions under the 50% in-service reservation quota, which was granted exclusively to IMO-II doctors. The petitioners made multiple representations requesting inclusion in the in-service quota but received no response, leading them to file this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The junior resident doctors contended that:
- They performed the same duties and responsibilities as IMO-II doctors.
- They possessed the same qualifications and worked under identical pay scales.
- The only difference between junior residents and IMO-II doctors was the mode of appointment—while junior residents were appointed as part of their bond service, IMO-II doctors were recruited through a competitive selection process.
- Excluding junior residents from the in-service quota was discriminatory and violated their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Several judgments, including Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India (2003) and Yatin Kumar Jasubahi vs. State of Gujarat (2019), had upheld institutional preference in PG admissions, and a similar approach should be adopted for them.
Respondents’ Arguments
The ESIC, represented by the Deputy Medical Commissioner (Medical Education), countered the petitioners’ claims with the following arguments:
- Junior residents and IMO-II doctors belonged to different categories, as junior residents were serving a bond and were not recruited through the ESIC’s formal recruitment process.
- The in-service reservation was an incentive for IMO-II doctors, who were permanent employees of ESIC and bound to serve until retirement.
- Junior residents, on the other hand, were contractual employees and not obligated to continue working in ESIC institutions after completing their PG courses.
- The ESIC Residency Scheme, revised on November 24, 2020, classified junior residents under a separate employment framework from IMO-II doctors.
- The leave policies, service regulations, and recruitment processes for both categories were distinct, justifying their differential treatment.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna analyzed the legal and policy aspects of the dispute. The Court made the following key observations:
- There was a clear legal distinction between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited IMO-II doctors.
- The in-service quota was designed as an incentive for IMO-II doctors to continue serving in ESIC institutions post-PG education.
- While junior residents performed similar duties as IMO-II doctors, their employment was contractual and tied to their bond obligation.
- The ESIC had the authority to frame policies on reservations and determine which categories of employees were eligible.
- Institutional preference in PG admissions was upheld in Saurabh Chaudri (2003), but it was a policy decision and not a constitutional right.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that:
“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.”
The Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus directing ESIC to extend in-service reservation to junior residents, stating that such policy decisions fell within the domain of the executive.
Key Takeaways
- In-Service Quota Justified: The Court upheld the ESIC’s policy of granting in-service reservations only to permanent IMO-II doctors.
- Junior Residents vs. IMO-II Doctors: The Court distinguished between contractual junior residents and permanent IMO-II doctors, emphasizing their different service obligations.
- Policy Decision, Not a Right: Institutional preference in PG admissions is a matter of policy and not a fundamental right.
- Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters: The Court reaffirmed that judicial intervention in executive policy decisions is limited.
- Impact on Medical Education: The ruling sets a precedent for similar disputes in medical institutions governed by bond-service obligations.
Conclusion
The judgment in Hemant Kumar Verma vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation reaffirms the principle that executive policy decisions regarding in-service reservations in PG admissions should be respected unless they violate fundamental rights. The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the distinction between different categories of medical professionals and ensures that policies incentivizing long-term service in ESIC institutions remain intact.
Petitioner Name: Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors..Respondent Name: Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors..Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.S. Bopanna.Place Of Incident: India.Judgment Date: 21-07-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: hemant-kumar-verma-&-vs-employees’-state-ins-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-21-07-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
