Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)   No  . 376   of   2018

Association of Medical Super Speciality  Aspirants and Residents & Ors.        .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Union of India & Others                       ….Respondent (s)

W I T H

Writ Petition (Civil) No  . 946 OF 2018 Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2019

Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2387 of 2019 Civil Appeal No. 6380 of 2019

Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1116 of 2019 Civil Appeal No. 6381 of 2019

Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10 of 2019 Civil Appeal No. 6382  of 2019

Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10007 of 2019 Civil Appeal No 6383 -6385 of 2019

Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.16814-16816 of   2019 (Diary No. 19100 OF 2019)

Civil Appeal No.6386 of 2019 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15688 of 2019

J U D G M E N T

L.  NAGESWARA  RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1.  The controversy in these cases pertains to the compulsory

bonds to be executed for admission to post-graduate medical

1

courses  and  super  speciality  courses.   The  Association  of

Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents has filed Writ

Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2018 seeking a writ of mandamus for

quashing the compulsory bond conditions,  as  imposed in  the

super speciality courses by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Goa,

Gujarat,  Himachal  Pradesh,  Karnataka,  Kerala,  Maharashtra,

Orissa,  Rajasthan,  Tamil  Nadu,  Telangana  and  West  Bengal

respectively.   A  further  direction  is  sought  for  returning  the

original mark-sheets, certificates and other documents retained

by the respective State authorities after the completion of the

concerned speciality courses.   

    2. Writ Petition (Civil) No.946 of 2018 is filed challenging the

Notification  dated  10.06.2014  issued  by  the  Government  of

West Bengal by which every post-graduate trainee was directed

to execute an Indemnity Bond to serve the State Government

for a period of three years after successful completion of post-

doctoral/MD/MS  course  and  for  a  period  of  two  years  after

successful completion of the PG Diploma course.  If the trainees

fail  to serve the State Government as mentioned above, they

shall be liable to recompense the State Government a penalty

amount of Rs.10 Lakhs for each defaulting year. The Appellants

seek  release  of  original  documents  without  insisting  on  the

2

payment of Rs.30 Lakhs as envisaged by the Notification dated

10.06.2014.    

    3. Notifications  issued  by  the  Department  of  Health  and

Family  Welfare,  Government  of  West  Bengal  imposing  the

condition  of  execution  of  compulsory  bond  at  the  time  of

admission to post-graduate courses and super speciality courses

were  challenged  in  the  High  Court  of  Calcutta.   Notification

dated 31.07.2013 which was assailed in the High Court required

the  Appellant-doctors  to  work  in  the  Multi-Speciality/  Super

Speciality Hospitals, Secondary and Tertiary Level Hospitals in

West Bengal for a period of one year after completion of their

post-graduate  and  post-doctoral  education  in  State  Medical

Teaching Institutions in West Bengal.   Execution of bond at the

time of admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality

courses, providing that they shall serve the State Government

for a period of one year on successful completion of the courses,

failing  which  they  will  be  liable  to  recompense  the  State

Government  a  penalty  amount  of  Rs.10  Lakhs,  was  made

compulsory. Partially  modifying  the Notification  dated

31.07.2013,  the  Government  of  West  Bengal  issued  a

Notification on 10.06.2014 by which the condition pertaining to

one year service was increased to two years.  The compensation

in  case  of  failure  by  the  Doctors  to  serve  in  the  State  was 3

enhanced to  Rs.  30 Lakhs.   139  Doctors  who have acquired

Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from

various  universities  in  the  country  challenged  the

aforementioned Notifications  in  the  High Court.   The  learned

Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by a judgment dated

03.11.2017 upheld the Notification dated 31.07.2013.  However,

the Notification dated 10.09.2014 was held to be arbitrary and

unreasonable.  Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single

Judge,  the  State  of  West  Bengal  filed  an  appeal  before  the

Division Bench of the High Court.  Some of the Writ Petitioners

who were aggrieved by the judgment insofar as it related to the

Notification dated 31.07.2013 being upheld also filed appeals.

By the impugned judgment,  a Division Bench of the Calcutta

High Court  held  that  both the Notifications dated 31.07.2013

and  10.09.2014  are  neither  unreasonable  nor  arbitrary.   The

Division  Bench  set  aside  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Single

Judge insofar as it related to the Notification dated 10.09.2014

being  quashed.   The  points  urged  before  the  High  Court  of

Calcutta and the findings recorded therein shall be dealt with

later.  

4. The  Appellants  seeking  admission  to  post-graduate

courses in Armed Forces Medical College, Pune were required to

execute a similar bond to serve in the Armed Forces Medical 4

Services as Short Service Commission Officers for a period of

five years on completion of the post-graduate courses.  In case

of failure to serve for five years, the Appellants were required to

recompense the college with Rs.25 Lakhs.  The above condition

was included  in  the brochure  for  admission  to  Post-Graduate

Medical Courses for the year 2014-2015.  A writ  petition was

filed  in  2017  by  Appellants  who  were  admitted  in  the  post-

graduate courses in the year 2014-2015 challenging the validity

of Clause 12 of the Information Bulletin which required them to

serve for five years in the Armed Forces Medical Services.  They

sought a further direction for return of their original documents

without  insisting  on  compulsory  service  condition.   The  Writ

Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High

Court by judgment dated 02.04.2019 with costs quantified at

Rs.1 Lakh per petitioner.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, SLP

Nos.10007 and 2387 of 2019 have been filed.   

5. We proceed to refer to the various contentions raised by

the  Appellants  before  the  High  Courts  and  judgments  of  the

High Courts’:

Calcutta High Court:  

As stated above, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High

Court was concerned with two Notifications dated 31.07.2013

5

and  10.09.2014  issued  by  the  Government  of  West  Bengal

imposing a condition of compulsory service in the State of West

Bengal  for  admission  to  post-graduate  and  super  Speciality

courses in Government Medical Colleges in the State.  It  was

contended  on  behalf  of  the  Appellants  that  they  became

entitled  for  admission  to  post-graduate  and  super  Speciality

courses in the government medical colleges in the State of West

Bengal on the basis of their merit in the All India Post Graduate

Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE).  According to them,

additional  eligibility  conditions  cannot  be  introduced  by  the

State  Government  in  respect  of  All  India  Quota  candidates.

Imposition of a condition of compulsory service infringes their

fundamental  rights  under  Articles  14,  19  and  21  of  the

Constitution of India.  In any case, introduction of compulsory

bonds can only be by way of legislation and not by an executive

order.  They relied on a judgment of this Court in Harsh Pratap

Sisodia v. Union of India1 to buttress their submission relating

to the bar on the State in fixing addition eligibility criteria.  In

this connection, they placed reliance on an order passed by this

Court  in  Anand  Biji v.  State  of  Kerala.2  They further

contended  that  the  insistence  of  a  condition  to  serve  in  the

State compulsorily would result in reservations being made by

1 (1999) 2 SCC 575 2 (2001) 6 SCC 665

6

the State, which would be contrary to the judgment of this Court

in  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain v.  Union  of  India.3  They  further

submitted that the service bonds executed by the Appellants fall

foul  of  Section  27  of  the  Indian  Contract  Act,  1872.   The

Notifications that were issued by the State Government were

also challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality as the State

Government lacked competence to issue such notifications.  It

was argued that all matters pertaining to medical education are

covered by the Medical Council of India Act, 1956.  As the field

was  already  occupied  by  a  Union  Legislation,  the  State

Government does not have the competence to legislate on the

same  subject  matter.   In  view  of  the  lack  of  legislative

competence, the State Government does not have the power to

issue executive orders in respect of compulsory bonds.   

On behalf of the State of West Bengal, it was argued that it

was  well  within  the  competence of  the  State  Government  to

issue executive instructions if the field was not occupied.  The

judgment of  this  Court  in  Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v.

State of Punjab4  and Bhishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan v.

State of  Uttar  Pradesh5 were  cited  in  support  of  the  said

proposition.  It was submitted by the State before the Division

3 (1984) 3 SCC 654 4 (1955) 2 SCR 225  5 (1982) 1 SCC 39

7

Bench that the decisions of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia

(supra) and Anand Biji (supra) did not relate to the compulsory

bonds and hence, were not applicable to the facts of the case.

The stand of the State was that none of the fundamental rights

under Articles 14, 19 and 21 were violated as the Appellants

chose to be admitted in government colleges in the State of

West Bengal without any protest or demur, and they cannot be

permitted to assail the conditions on their admissions at the fag

end of their courses.   

The following issues were framed for consideration by the

Division Bench:  

“(i) Could  the State  Government  have introduced the bond system by issuing the notifications which are under challenge in the present proceeding or was legislation necessary for that purpose?

(ii) Do the notifications impinge upon the freedom of the petitioners  to  practice  any profession,  or  to carry  on  any  occupation,  trade  or  business guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution?  

(iii) Were  the  writ  petitioners  aware  of  the  bond system  before  opting  for  West  Bengal  as  their academic  destination  for  post  graduate  medical studies?

8

(iv) Is  the  bond  system  in  restraint  of  a  lawful profession, trade or business and is thus violative of Sec.27 of the Indian Contract Act?

(v) Is there any such infirmity in the judgment and order  impugned  before  us  as  would  warrant interference by this Court?”    

The first issue was answered in favour of the State by the

Division Bench holding that the provisions of Article 166 (1) &

(2)  were  being  complied  with  before  the  Notifications  were

issued.  The Division Bench held that the Notifications issued by

the State Government did not impinge on the freedom of the

Appellants  to  practice  any  profession  or  to  carry  on  any

occupation, trade or business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of

the Constitution of India.  Article 162 of the Constitution refers

to the extent of the executive power of the State Government

and  that  power  is  not  restricted  only  to  matters  on  which

legislation  has  already  been  passed.   The  Division  Bench

observed that  the State Government  has the right  to  fill  the

vacuum which exists due to the absence of any legislation and

which can be filled by the executive instructions in the form of

circulars/notifications.   The Division Bench was of the opinion

that  there  is  no  fundamental  right  to  pursue  post-graduate

medical  education,  especially  in  government  colleges  where

higher  education is  subsidized.  The Division Bench concurred 9

with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Appellants,

who secured admissions in post-graduate medical colleges after

taking an informed decision to  receive education at  a  highly

subsidized  rate,  cannot  be  permitted  to  question  the

compulsory  medical  service  bonds.   The  point  raised  by  the

Appellants  about  the  disability  of  the  State  Governments  in

introducing  additional  eligibility  criteria  was  rejected  by  the

Division Bench on the ground that the judgments of this Court in

Harsh Pratap Sisodia  (supra) and  Anand Biji (supra) were

not applicable  to  the facts  of  this  case.   The Division Bench

stressed the point relating to the primacy of public health when

it  comes  in  conflict  with  private  interest.   It  relied  upon  a

judgment of this Court in Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) thr.

LRs & ORs. V. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Anr.6 to hold that

the  notion  of  public  interest  is  synonymous  with  collective

welfare of the people and public institutions, and is generally

informed  by  the  dictates  of  the  public  trust  doctrine  –  res

communis (i.e. everyone  is  common).   The  Division  Bench

rejected the point raised by the Appellants that the compulsory

bonds were in violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act.  It was

held  that  the post-graduate medical  courses  and the  service

bond were a package.  The Division Bench sought support from

6 (2016) 4 SCC 631

10

the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Bombay  in  Dr. Vinod

Shankarlal Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra &

Anr7. to  uphold  the  constitutionality  of  the  Government

Resolutions imposing service bond.  On the basis of the above

findings,  the  Division  Bench  upheld  the  Notifications  dated

31.07.2013 and 10.09.2014.

Karnataka High Court:      

The Government of Karnataka insisted that the Appellants

who have completed post-graduate degrees/diploma courses in

government medical colleges should serve the Government for

one year.  Sub-rule (7) of Rule 15 of the Karnataka Conduct of

Entrance  Test  for  Selection  and  Admission  to  Postgraduate

Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006,

framed  under  Section  14  (1)  of  the  Karnataka  Educational

Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, imposes a

penalty  of  Rs.50  Lakhs  and  Rs.25  Lakhs  respectively  for

Postgraduate  Degree  and  Postgraduate  Diploma  students  on

their  failure  to  serve  the  Government  on completion  of  their

respective  courses.   All  the  Writ  Petitioners  executed  the

obligation bond at the time of their admission.  On completion of

their  courses,  they  filed  a  writ  petition  in  the  High  Court

questioning the bonds on several grounds.  The points raised by

7 2013 AIR Bom. 1

11

them relating to the undertaking being vitiated by coercion and

violation of Article 23 of the Constitution and other fundamental

rights have been answered against them.  The submission of the

Appellants  that  they  should  be  exempted  from  the  bond

obligations as they were admitted from the All India Quota was

also rejected by the High Court.   

Kerala High Court:

A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dealt with the

issue pertaining to compulsory bonds and held that there is no

restriction imposed on the medical students from practicing the

profession.  The restriction was only regarding their choice of

place of practice for one year.  After dealing with all the points

pertaining to restriction from trade or profession and the public

policy,  Seshadri  Naidu,  J. speaking  for  the  Court  stated  that

those  Appellants  who  were  benefited  by  subsidised  medical

education must repay their debt/gratitude.   

High Court of Judicature at Bombay :       

Writ  Petitions  filed  by  the  students  of  super  speciality

courses were considered by a Division Bench of the High Court

of  Judicature  at  Bombay.   Imposition  of  a  condition  that  the

Appellants should serve in the Government medical colleges for

a period of one year failing which they have to pay a penalty

12

was found to be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.   Dr.  D.Y.

Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) was of the firm opinion that

the judgment of this Court in  Dr. Pradeep Jain  (supra) which

pertained to reservations on the basis of domicile status had no

connection  with  service  bonds.   The  Division  Bench  of  the

Bombay High Court  held  that  the  compulsory  bond  requiring

each  Appellant  to  serve  for  one  year  is  also  not

disproportionate.  It was observed in the said judgment that the

State  has  a  legitimate interest  in  ensuring  the  students  who

benefitted from the infrastructure created by it must contribute

back to the community by public service.  The Division Bench

took note of the fact that post-graduate and super Speciality

doctors were being posted as Registrars and Senior Residents.

After  examining  the  need  for  the  Government  to  utilize  the

services of the post-graduate and super Speciality doctors, the

Division Bench gave a direction that they should be allotted to

posts which are commensurate with their qualifications.   

Gujarat High Court:  

The learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court took a

view different from the one taken by Calcutta High Court, Kerala

High Court, Karnataka High Court and the Bombay High Court. 13

Execution of bonds by the doctors was a result of coercion as

per the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High

Court, who declared the bond agreement as unreasonable and

unconscionable.   Ergo,  the  bond  agreement  was  opposed  to

public policy and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.  We

are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of

Gujarat that an appeal has been filed against the said judgment

which is pending consideration before a Division Bench of the

Gujarat High Court.           

Pleadings

6. Having taken note of the judgments of the High Courts, it

is time to consider the submissions that are made before us.

Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Writ  Petitioners in Writ  Petition (Civil)  No.376 of  2018

argued that the doctors who have completed the post-graduate

courses and super Speciality courses are national assets.  Their

services should be utilized in the best possible manner in places

where there are facilities and they should not be wasted in rural

areas.  Their presence in institutions at the national level would

be beneficial to the society apart from providing an opportunity

to them to hone their skills.  He stated that additional conditions

in  the  nature  of  bonds  cannot  be  imposed  by  the  State

14

Government which would disturb the balance stipulated by the

Medical  Council  of  India  Regulations.   He submitted that  the

conditions imposed by the State Government are onerous and

he commended for our acceptance that a reasonable exit clause

should exist.   

7. Mr.  Krishnamohan Menon,  learned counsel  appearing for

the Appellants in SLP (Civil) No.2387 of 2019, SLP (C) No.10 of

2010 and SLP (C) No. 19100 of 2019 in the Appeals arising out

of  the  judgment  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court  questioned  the

Notifications as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles

14,  19(1)(g)  and  21  of  the  Constitution.   He  urged  that  the

notifications would not constitute “law” within the meaning of

Article 13 of the Constitution.  He submitted that the Appellants

have  freedom  to  carry  on  trade  and  profession  guaranteed

under  Article  19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution  which  can  be

restricted only by a law made by the State Legislature in the

interest of the general public. Any restrictions to be placed on

the  freedom  to  carry  on  trade  and  profession  should  be

reasonable.   According  to  him,  the  bonds  imposed  by  the

Notifications failed the test of reasonableness.   He submitted

that  the  post-graduate  and  super  Speciality  Doctors  are  not

equipped  to  handle  health  needs  in  rural  areas,  and  by  not

utilizing the skills of these specialists, the Government would be

15

doing  disservice  to  the  society.   He  referred  to  instances  in

which specialists in Cardiology, Pathology and Pediatrics were

asked  to  take  care  of  the  primary  medical  health  care.   He

voiced his concern for the need to balance the academic career

and personal incentives for Appellants with public interest.  He

also  complained  of  arbitrariness  in  imposition  of  bond

conditions.  He dealt with the point of the Notifications suffering

from the vice  of  lack of  jurisdiction on the part  of  the State

Government.   

8. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Appellants in the Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.10007 of

2019  contended  that  the  condition  imposed  for  rendering

compulsory service in the Army is violative of Articles 19(1)(g)

and  23  (1)  read  with  Article  21  of  the  Constitution.   The

compulsory bond is violative of Section 27 of the Indian Contract

Act, 1872 apart from being barred by Section 14 of the Specific

Relief  Act,  1963.   According  to  Mr.  Ahmadi,  insistence  of

compulsory service in the Army for five years is ‘forced labour’

which  is  prohibited  under  Article  23  of  the  Constitution.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v.  Union of India8

was cited in support of the said proposition.  He further asserted

that Article 23(2) is an exception to Article 23(1).  Compulsory

8 (1982) 3 SCC 235  

16

employment  provided  under  Article  23(2)  can  be  introduced

only  by  way  of  legislation  and  not  by  a  mere  executive

instruction.  By referring to Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act,

Mr. Ahmadi submitted that a contract of personal service is not

enforceable.  He  also  commended  that  there  should  be  a

reasonable exit clause.  Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel

appearing for the Appellants in the Appeal arising out of SLP (C)

No.  15688  of  2019  adopted  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.

Ahmadi and sought for the release of original documents which

were taken from the Appellants at the time of their admission to

post-graduate  courses  to  enable  them  to  participate  in  the

counselling for admissions into the super Speciality courses.   

9. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the State of West Bengal submitted that the executive power of

the State Government is co-extensive to the power of the State

Legislature to legislate, as medical education falls under Entry

25 of List III of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution.  Mr. Dwivedi

posited  that  the  State  Government  has  a  role  to  play  in

admissions unless the field is completely occupied by a Central

Legislation.   In  support  of  the submission that  the State has

always the power to supplement and not supplant the provisions

of a statute, he relied upon  Ch. Tikaramji  v.  State of Uttar

17

Pradesh9 and  Modern  Dental  College  and  Research

Centre  v.  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh.10 According  to  Mr.

Dwivedi, the subject matter relating to compulsory bonds is not

a subject matter of any legislation made by the Parliament.  He

further  contended  that  in  furtherance  of  the  right  to  health

which  falls  under  Article  21  read  with  Article  14  of  the

Constitution, there is a duty cast on the State Government to

provide medical facilities.  He sought support of the judgments

of  this  Court  in  Paschim Banga Khet  Mazdoor  Samity v.

State of West Bengal11,  State of Punjab v.  Ram Lubhaya

Bagga12 and  Union  of  India v.  Moolchand Khairati  Ram

Trust.13    Mr. Dwivedi urged that the source from which the

doctors  are  selected  for  post-graduate  courses  and  super

Speciality courses is not relevant to decide the validity of the

compulsory  bonds  on  the  touchstone  of  Article  14  of  the

Constitution.  No special status can be assigned to doctors who

are admitted in seats allotted to All  India Quota as they lose

their  birthmarks after  admission to their  colleges.   He stated

that treating All India Quota students as a separate class can

result  in unreasonable classification and hostile discrimination

against the State Quota students.  Mr. Dwivedi argued that the

9 AIR 1966 SC 676. 10 (2016) 7 SCC 353 11 (1996) 4 SCC 37 ¶9 & 16 12 (1998) 4 SCC 117 ¶ 26, 27 & 35 13 (2018) 8 SCC 321

18

policy  of  the  State  Government  is  neither  arbitrary  nor

unreasonable.  He submitted that an amount of Rs.23,93,784/-

is  spent  on  each  Doctor  at  the  post-graduate  level  by  the

Government of West Bengal and hence the requirement of the

penalty  of  Rs.10  Lakhs  for  each  defaulting  year  is  neither

excessive nor disproportionate.  There is no fundamental right

to pursue post-graduate medical education for which reason no

complaint can be made by the Appellants for violation of Article

19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution.    While  dealing  with  the

submissions of infringement of Article 23(1) of the Constitution,

he submitted that imposition of compulsory service for public

purposes is permitted by Article 23(2) of the Constitution.  He

referred  to  a  Report  of  World  Health  Organisation  (WHO)

released in 2010 which also recommended compulsory service

of health professionals in rural and remote areas.  Compulsory

services varying from one to nine years are prevalent in about

70  countries.   Utilizing  the  services  of  talented  and  skilled

doctors is in conformity with the National Health Policy14.  Mr.

Dwivedi further submitted that the point pertaining to Section

14(1)(b)  of  the  Specific  Relief  Act  does  not  arise  for  our

consideration as the State Governments are not seeking specific

relief of enforcement.  He asseverated that compulsory service 14 World Health Organization (2010). Increasing access to health workers in remote and rural areas through improved retention. Geneva: World Health Organization.

19

bond  is  a  part  of  the  integral  package  for  providing  highly

subsidized medical  education at  post-graduate level  and that

retention  of  the  documents  to  ensure  compliance  with  the

conditions of the compulsory service bonds is permissible.   

10. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the State of Goa provided information relating to

the  amounts  spent  on  doctors  receiving  post-graduation

education in the State of  Goa.   The State of  Goa spends an

amount  of  Rs.50  Lakhs  for  a  student  per  annum  for

specialization.   The amount of  fee that is  charged from each

student  is  Rs.77,500/-.   The  students  undergoing  super

Speciality courses are paid a monthly stipend of Rs. 86,927/- for

the first year, Rs. 89,495/- for the second year and Rs. 92,191/-

for  the third  year.  The doctors  who receive highly  subsidized

medical education are obligated to render public service and the

State has a legitimate right to insist on the doctors serving the

State for a short period of time.  The bond condition in the State

of  Goa is  that  doctors  who receive education in  Government

colleges should serve for three years in the State, in default of

which  they  are  liable  to  pay  Rs.10  Lakhs.  He  supported  the

policy of the State Government being in public interest.       

20

11. Mr.  K.M.  Nataraj,  learned Additional  Solicitor  General  for

the  Union  of  India  and  the  Armed  Forces  Medical  College

requested us not to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay

High Court as the Appellants who were admitted to the post-

graduate courses after executing the bond cannot be permitted

to  question  the  requirement  of  the  compulsory  bond  on

completion of the course. He contended that the requirement of

compulsory service in the Army is in public interest.  He further

submitted that the judgment in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra)

and the order passed in Anand S. Biji (supra) were not related

to the bond conditions and cannot be taken advantage of by the

Appellants. He also stated that the requirement of the bond to

serve for five years does not deserve any relaxation.  

12. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the State of Rajasthan contended that there is no fundamental

right to receive higher education and the question of violation of

Article  19(1)(g)  does  not  arise.   He fairly  submitted that  the

executive  instructions  and  notifications  issued  by  the

Government  necessitating  the  compulsory  bond  do  not  fall

within the expression “law” under Article 13 of the Constitution.

But, as there is no violation of any fundamental right, no fault

can  be  found  with  the  notifications  issued  by  the  State

21

Government in exercise of their powers under Article 162 of the

Constitution.  He argued that the beneficiaries of Government

funds form a different class and it is permissible for the State

Government  to  impose  conditions  for  admission  into

government colleges.     

13. Ms. Deepanwita  Priyanka,  learned counsel  appearing for

the State of Gujarat submitted that there are six colleges in the

State of Gujarat imparting education in super speciality courses.

In  all,  there  are  122  seats  out  of  which  76 seats  are  in  the

government colleges and 46 seats in the private colleges.  A

nominal fee of Rs.40,000/- is charged from the doctors who are

paid a stipend of Rs.72,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.80,000/- per

month for their first year, second year and third year courses

respectively.   There  is  a  high  demand  for  super  Speciality

doctors in the State of Gujarat in view of the large number of

patients  in  departments  of  Oncology,  Cardiology  and

Nephrology in  the  super  Speciality  hospitals.   In  view of  the

health need of  the patients  and the acute shortage of  super

specialists,  the  State  Government  decided  to  introduce  the

compulsory bond.  The super specialists are posted only in the

four super Speciality hospitals run by the Government.  

22

14. Mr.  Shibashish  Misra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

State of Orissa brought to our notice that all the 45 seats in the

super Speciality courses in the State are filled up on the basis of

merit  in  the  All  India  Counselling.   The  fee  charged  in  the

Government colleges is Rs. 45,000/- per year and the stipend of

Rs.56,826/- is paid to the doctors undergoing super Speciality

courses.  There is serious shortage of super Speciality doctors in

the State and the Government’s decision to introduce the bond

system is in public interest.   

15. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu stated that there are 334

super Speciality seats in 24 Government medical colleges run

by the State Government.   The Government is  charging only

Rs.30,000/-  per  annum  from  the  doctors  undergoing  super

Speciality courses.  An amount of Rs.21 Lakhs is spent on each

post-graduate student by the Government.   Earlier,  the bond

required super specialists to serve for 10 years in the State and

pay Rs.2 Crores in default. The State reviewed the policy and

reduced the bond amount to Rs.50 Lakhs.  The period of service

to be rendered by the doctors who have undergone training in

Super Speciality courses has been reduced to two years from

ten  years.   It  is  also  brought  to  our  notice  that  about  217

candidates have violated the bond conditions.   23

Analysis:     

16. The main points that require consideration are:

I. Jurisdiction of the State Government, II. Violation of Fundamental Rights, III. Contract of Personal Service, and

          IV.      Restraint on Profession.

I. Jurisdiction of the State Government:

17. Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution

refers  to  coordination  and  determination  of  standards  in

institutions for higher education or research and scientific and

technical  institutions.  Entry  25  of  List  III  of  the  7th Schedule

deals  with  education,  including  technical  education,  medical

education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries

63, 64, 65 and 66 of List  I.  Legislations can be made by the

State Legislature relating to medical  education subject to the

legislation made by the Parliament. The Medical Council of India

Act  governs  the  field  of  medical  education  in  this  country.

Admittedly, there is no provision in the Medical Council of India

Act  touching  upon  the  subject  matter  of  compulsory  bonds.

Therefore, the States are free to legislate on the subject matter

of medical bonds.  Executive authority of the State Government

24

is co-extensive with that of the legislative power of the State

Legislature.  Even in the absence of any legislation, the State

Government  has  the  competence  to  issue  executive  orders

under Article 162 of the Constitution on matters over which the

State legislature has the power to legislate.  The Notifications

issued  by  the  State  Governments  imposing  a  condition  of

execution of compulsory bonds at the time of admission to post-

graduate courses and super Speciality courses cannot be said to

be vitiated due to lack of authority or competence.  The field of

bonds requiring compulsory employment is not covered by any

Central Legislation.  Therefore, the submissions made on behalf

of the Appellants that the States lacked competence to issue

the notifications as the field is occupied are rejected.   

II.        Violation of Fundamental Rights:      

Article 14 :

A. Arbitrariness  

18. The Appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the State

Governments  imposing  conditions  for  their  admission  in  the

post-graduate courses and super Speciality courses.  According

to them, the State Governments have understood the decision

of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) to be a restraint

on the exercise of their power in matters relating to eligibility

criteria  for  admission  to  medical  course.   Suddenly,  the 25

introduction  of  the  compulsory  bonds  after  15  years  of  the

judgment  in  Harsh  Pratap  Sisodia  (supra)  is  the  result  of

decision taken by the State Governments which is dubbed by

the  Appellants  as  arbitrary.   This  Court  in  Harsh  Pratap

Sisodia  (supra)  was  concerned  with  the  additional  eligibility

criteria being introduced by the State Governments for the 15%

All  India  Quota  students.   The  decision  taken  by  the  State

Governments  to  impose  a  condition  of  compulsory  bond  for

admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality is on

the basis of relevant material.   Huge infrastructure has to be

developed  and  maintained  for  running  medical  colleges  with

post-graduate and super Speciality courses.  The amount of fees

charged  from  the  students  is  meagre  in  comparison  to  the

private medical colleges.  Reasonable stipend has to be paid to

the doctors.  Above all, the State Governments have taken into

account the need to provide health care to the people and the

scarcity  of  super  specialists  in  their  States.   Consequently,  a

policy decision taken by the State Governments to utilize the

services  of  doctors  who  were  beneficiaries  of  Government

assistance  to  complete  their  education  cannot  be  termed

arbitrary.  

B. Reasonableness

26

19. Reasonableness  is  a  ground  that  pervades  through  the

submissions made by the counsel on both sides.  In the State of

West Bengal, the requirement of a compulsory bond was initially

a service of one year in the State in default of Rs.10 Lakhs was

to be paid.  This was enhanced to three years and Rs.30 Lakhs

by a Notification dated 09.10.2014.   In the State of Tamil Nadu,

the bond condition was that a doctor has to serve for ten years

in the State and in default of which, the doctor was to pay Rs.2

Crores.  This was reduced to two years and Rs.50 Lakhs.  The

Armed Forces Medical College imposes a condition of five years

compulsory  service  in  the  Army for  post-graduate  and  super

Speciality  doctors  who  prosecuted their  study in  the  college.

They  have  an  option  of  not  serving  for  five  years  by

recompensing  the  Government  by  paying  Rs.25  Lakhs.   The

main contention of the counsel appearing for the Appellants is

that the condition of a long period of service that is imposed is

unreasonable.  The basis for the submission is that they have

already served the society by working in Government hospitals

while undergoing their course.  Further conditions imposed on

them would impede the progress of their careers.  Restrictions

placed on their choice of place of work are also unreasonable

according  to  them.   An  alternate  submission  made  by  the

counsel appearing for the Appellants is that the imposition of

27

the condition of compulsory bond should be reasonable and the

exit clause should be relaxed.  Notifications issued by the State

Governments imposing a condition of compulsory service and a

default clause are per se not unreasonable. However, we are in

agreement  with  the learned counsel  for  the doctors  that  the

period of compulsory service and the exit should be reasonable.

The State Governments and the Armed Forces Medical College

are directed to consider imposing the condition of compulsory

service period of two years in default of which the Doctors shall

recompense the Government by paying Rs. 20 Lakhs.  

Article 19:  

20. According  to  the  Appellants,  the  right  to  carry  on  their

profession which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) is violated by

the  compulsory  bonds.   They  contend  that  the  compulsory

bonds  place  a  restriction  on  their  right  to  carry  on  their

profession on completion of their course.  It is also submitted

that any restriction on their right to carry on their profession by

the  State  Government  can  be  made only  by  a  “law”  as  per

Article 19(6) of the Constitution.  Consequently, the Notifications

that were issued by the State Governments fall foul of Article

19(1)(g).  The compulsory bond executed by the Appellants is at

the  time  of  their  admissions  into  post-graduate  and  super

Speciality  courses.   Conditions  imposed  for  admission  to  a

28

medical college will not directly violate the right of an individual

to carry on his profession.  The right to carry on the profession

would start  on the completion of  the course.   At  the outset,

there is no doubt that no right inheres in an individual to receive

higher education.  Violation of a right guaranteed under Article

19(1)(g) does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a

college.  There is no doubt, that the condition that is imposed

has a connection with the professional activity of a doctor on

completion  of  the  course.   However,  the  Appellants  have,

without any protest, accepted the admissions and executed the

compulsory bonds.  Execution of bonds is part of a composite

package.   We  are  in  agreement  with  the  judgment  of  the

Calcutta High Court that the Appellants have not been able to

succeed in their attempt of assailing the Notifications for being

violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.  We uphold the

said finding of the Division Bench.   

Article 21

21. The Appellants contended before the Calcutta High Court

that  their  liberty  is  curtailed  by the compulsory  bonds.   The

scope of liberty which has been enhanced by this Court includes

personal autonomy to take decisions relating to their profession.

It  was  contended  that  the  condition  requiring  them  to

compulsorily  work  for  a  certain  period  of  time  with  the 29

Government corrodes their liberty, affecting their right to life.

They relied upon judgments of this Court in  Kharak Singh v.

State of U.P.15 and K.S.  Puttaswamy v. Union of India16

while advancing this submission. Referring to a judgment of this

Court in  Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed  (supra), the High Court

held that private rights,  when in conflict  with public  interest,

have to take a back seat.  The High Court also recalled what

Marcus Tullius Cicero said about the good of the people being

the chief law.   

22. Article  21  of  the  Constitution  of  India  imposes  an

obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every

person.   Preservation  of  human  life  is  thus  of  paramount

importance. The Government hospitals run by the State and the

Medical  Officers  employed  therein  are  duty  bound  to  extend

medical  assistance for  preserving human life.   Failure  on the

part  of  a  Government  hospital  to  provide  timely  medical

treatment  to  a  person  in  need  of  such  treatment  results  in

violation  of  his  right  guaranteed  under  Article  21  of  the

Constitution.17  Therefore, in a welfare State it is the obligation

of  the  State  to  ensure  the  creation  and  the  sustaining  of

conditions congenial to good health.18      

15 AIR 1963 SC 1295 16 (2017) 10 SCC 1 17 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC 37 18 Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165

30

23. Article 47 of the Constitution reiterates the constitutional

obligation imposed on the State to improve public health. The

Directive Principle provides as follows:

“47. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the  improvement  of  public  health  as  among  its primary  duties  and,  in  particular,  the  State  shall endeavour  to  bring  about  prohibition  of  the consumption  except  for  medicinal  purposes  of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

24. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union

of India19 it  was held that maintenance and improvement of

public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to

the  very  physical  existence  of  the  community  and  on  the

betterment  of  these  depends  the  building  of  the  society  of

which  the  Constitution  makers  envisaged.   It  was  further

observed in the above judgment that attending to public health,

therefore, is of high priority- perhaps the one at the top.   

25. It  is  for  the State to  secure health  to  its  citizens as its

primary  duty.   No  doubt  the  Government  is  rendering  this

obligation by opening Government hospitals and health centers,

but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach

of its people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue of waiting

19 (1981) 1 SCC 246

31

lists, and it has to provide all facilities to employ best of talents

and  tone  up  its  administration  to  give  effective  contribution,

which is also the duty of the Government20.   

26. Right to health is integral to the right to life.  Government

has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities21.  The

fundamental right to life which is the most precious human right

and which forms the ark of all  other rights must therefore be

interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with

significance and vitality which may endure for years to come

and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of the

human person.  The right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot

be  restricted  to  mere  animal  existence.  It  means  something

much more than just physical survival.  The right to life includes

the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with

it,  namely,  the  bare  necessaries  of  life  such  as  adequate

nutrition, clothing and shelter, and facilities for reading, writing

and expressing oneself  in  diverse forms,  freely moving about

and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.  Every

act  which  offends  against  or  impairs  human  dignity  would

constitute  deprivation  pro  tanto of  this  right  to  live  and  the

restriction would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair

20 State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 21 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 83

32

and just procedure established by law which stands the test of

other fundamental rights22.

27. To  live  is  to  live  with  dignity.  The  draftsmen  of  the

Constitution  defined  their  vision  of  the  society  in  which

constitutional values would be attained by emphasizing, among

other freedoms, liberty and dignity.  So fundamental  is  dignity

that  it  permeates  the  core  of  the  rights  guaranteed  to  the

individual by Part III of the Constitution. Dignity is the core which

unites the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights

seek to achieve for each individual the dignity of existence23.

28. The State’s obligations are not satisfied solely by refraining

from imposing limitations on the right to human dignity.  The

State  must  also  take action  to  protect  human dignity  and to

facilitate  its  realization.  The  constitutional  right  to  dignity  is

intended to ensure human beings’ political and civil liberties as

well as their social and economic freedoms24.    

29. Dr. A. K. Sikri. J. in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India25

observed that the realisation of intrinsic worth of every human

being as a member of society is an indispensable condition, and

has  been  recognised  as  an  important  human  right.  Truly

speaking,  this  is  directed  towards  the  deprived,  downtrodden 22 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 23 K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) 24 Aharon Barak,  Human Dignity: the Constitutional Value and the Constitutional Right in Christopher McCrudden (ed.),  Understanding Human Dignity, Proceedings of the British Academy, 192, pp. 361-80 at p. 367. 25 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 1 [AADHAAR 5JB].  

33

and the have-nots. He further held that the humanistic concept

of  human  dignity  which  is  to  be  accorded  to  that  particular

segment of  the society has to be kept in mind. Their  human

dignity is based on the socio-economic rights that are read into

the fundamental rights.  The importance of the communitarian

approach  along  with  the  individualistic  approach  to  human

dignity was addressed by Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. in the above judgment.

The  learned  Judge  emphasised  on  the  role  of  the  State  and

community in establishing collective goals  and restrictions on

individual freedoms and rights on behalf of a certain idea of the

good life.

30. We accept the submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned

Senior Counsel for the State of West Bengal that the positive

obligation of the State to uphold the dignity of a larger section of

the society is to protect the rights conferred on them by Article

21 of  the Constitution.   The immediate need of  the deprived

sections  of  the  society  to  have  proper  health  care  was  the

reason  behind  the  policy  decision  of  the  Government.   The

objective of the policy is to ensure that specialist health care is

extended to the have-nots also.

31. The next question that arises is whether there is a conflict

between  the  rights  of  the  community  and  the  rights  of  the

Appellants.  As stated earlier, the right that is claimed by the

34

Appellants  is  to  make  an  individual  choice  to  carry  on  their

profession  which  might  be  hindered  by  the  decision  of  the

Government.   On  the  other  hand,  the  basic  idea  behind  the

Government’s decision is larger public interest.  The judgment of

this Court in Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (supra) relied upon by

the High Court is to the effect that private interest has to take a

back  seat  when  pitted  against  public  interest.  In  Mr.  X  v.

Hospital  ‘Z’,26 Saghir  Ahmad  J  speaking  for  this  Court,  held

that:

44….Moreover,  where  there  is  a  clash  of  two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant's right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms ‘Y’s right to lead a healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would  alone  be  enforced  through  the  process  of court, for  the  reason  that  moral  considerations cannot  be  kept  at  bay  and  the  Judges  are  not expected to sit as mute structures of clay in the hall known as the courtroom, but have to be sensitive, “in the sense that  they must  keep their  fingers  firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day”.” [emphasis supplied].   

32. The  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

recorded in the Preamble its  recognition of  the inherent

26 (1998) 8 SCC 296

35

dignity  and  of  the  equal  and  inalienable  rights  of  all

members  of  the  human  family  as  the  foundation  of

freedom, justice and peace.  The International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes

the right of every person to the enjoyment of the highest

attainable standard of physical and mental health.  ICESCR

mandates the States Parties to achieve full  realization of

the  aforementioned  right  through  the  creation  of

conditions which would assure to all, medical service and

medical attention in the event of sickness, inter alia.  

33. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that

right to life guaranteed by Article 21 means right to life

with  human  dignity.   Communitarian  dignity  has  been

recognised by this Court.  While balancing communitarian

dignity  vis-à-vis  the  dignity  of  private  individuals,  the

scales must tilt in favour of communitarian dignity.  The

laudable objective with which the State Governments have

introduced  compulsory  service  bonds  is  to  protect  the

fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society

guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.  The  contention  of  the  Appellants  that  their  rights

guaranteed under Article  21 of  the Constitution of  India

have been violated is rejected.  

36

Article 23

34. Article 23 reads as follows:

23. “(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention  of  this  provision  shall  be  an  offence punishable in accordance with law.  (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing  compulsory  service  for  public  purposes, and  in  imposing  such  service  the  State  shall  not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.”

35. The  submission  of  Mr.  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  Senior

Counsel for the Appellants is that the conditions of the bond per

se amount to ‘forced labour’ and thus are violative of Article 23

(1)  of  the  Constitution.   Mr.  Dwivedi  expostulated  the  said

submission by referring to Article 23 (2) which confers power on

the  State  to  impose  compulsory  service  for  public  purpose.

Reliance was placed upon the Constituent Assembly Debates by

Mr. Dwivedi explaining the scope of compulsory employment for

public purpose under Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India.

The Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a

decent stipend cannot complain that they are made to perform

‘forced labour’,  especially  after  the Appellants  have taken an

informed  decision  to  avail  the  benefits  of  admission  in

37

government  medical  colleges  and  received  subsidized

education.  By no means, the service rendered by the Appellants

in  Government  hospitals  would  fall  under  the  expression  of

‘forced labour’.

36. The  13th Amendment  to  the  U.S.  Constitution  prohibits

slavery and involuntary servitude.  The Supreme Court of the

United  States  held  that  compulsory  employment  for  public

purpose  does  not  amount  to  ‘involuntary  servitude’  in

Robertson v. Baldwin27 and Butler v. Perry28. Article 23 (2)

of  the Constitution enables the State Governments to require

the  Appellants  to  do  compulsory  service  in  the  Government

hospitals which is undoubtedly for the benefit of the public.

III. Contract of Personal Service

37.  Section  14  of  the  Specific  Relief  Act,  1963 prohibits  the

enforcement of contracts of personal service.  The submission of

Mr. Ahmadi that the contract of personal service, in the form of a

compulsory  bond,  is  not  enforceable  was  dealt  with  by  Mr.

Dwivedi, who argued that the State Governments do not intend

to enforce the contract  in a court  of law.   It  is  trite  law that

Courts  do  not  ordinarily  enforce  performance  of  contracts  of

personal  character,  such  as  a  contract  of  employment29. 27 165 U.S. 275 (1897) [US Supreme Court] 28 (1916), 240 U.S. 328, 329. 29 Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Rae Bareli & Anr. v. Badri Nath Dixit & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 54

38

Reference  can  be  made  to  the  judgment  of  Jessel,  M.R.,  in

Rigby v. Connol30 wherein he held that:

“The  courts  have  never  dreamt  of  enforcing

agreements strictly personal in their nature, whether

they are agreements of hiring and service, being the

common relation of master and servant ….”

38. Specific performance of contract for personal service is not

permissible under the Specific Relief Act, therefore, there cannot

be a decree for specific performance of a contract of personal

nature.   None of the State Governments have made an attempt

to  enforce  the  contracts  entered  into  by  them  with  the

Appellants through the service bonds.  We are not in agreement

with the submission of Mr. Ahmadi that the compulsory bonds

fall foul of the Specific Relief Act.  

IV. Restraint on Profession

39.  The argument advanced on behalf  of the Appellants that

compulsory  bonds  placed  a  restraint  on  their  profession  and

thus, would be contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act,

1872.  The High Court  of  Calcutta repelled this  submission by

holding  that  the  compulsory  bond  does  not  amount  to  any

restraint on the professional activity of the Appellants. The High

Court  observed  that  the  Appellants  are  offered  the  job  of 30 (1880) 14 Ch D 482, 487

39

Medical  Officer  in  the  State  of  West  Bengal  and  that  the

covenant  in  the  compulsory  bond  operates  only  during  the

period of  such employment.  Relying upon the dictum of  Lord

Morris in  Esso Petroleum  v.  Harper’s Garage (Stourport)

Ltd.,31 that  “if  A  made  a  contract  under  which  he  willingly

agreed to serve B on reasonable terms for a few years and to

give his whole working time to B, it would be surprising indeed,

if it were sought to describe the contract as being in restraint of

trade;  in  fact,  such  a  contract  would  very  likely  be  for  the

advancement of trade’, the High Court concluded that a contract

entered into by Appellants to serve the government for a few

years under reasonable terms cannot be described as one in

restraint  of  trade.  We  are  in  agreement  with  the  findings

recorded by the High Court of Calcutta. Therefore, we are of the

considered opinion that the conditions of compulsory bonds for

admission  to  post-graduate  and  super-Speciality  courses  in

government medical colleges are not in violation of Section 27

of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.  

40. The  upshot  of  the  above  discussion  is  that  the  Writ

Petitions  and  the  Appeals  deserve  to  be  dismissed.

Consequently,  all  the Doctors who have executed compulsory

bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein.    

31 1967 1 All ER 699.  

40

41. Taking  note  of  the  fact  that  certain  State  Governments

have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by

the  Appellants  and  the  felt  need  of  uniformity  in  the  matter

pertaining to the compulsory bonds, we suggest that suitable

steps be taken by the Union of India and the Medical Council of

India to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service

to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in government

institutions.   

42. The Writ Petitions and the Appeals are dismissed.    

                                                    …................................J.                                                     [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                       ..............................J.                                             [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, August 19, 2019   

41