The Karnataka High Court has provided relief to 447 MBBS students by exempting them from compulsory rural service for one year. This exemption was granted under the 2012 amendment to Rule 11 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006. The court noted that the amended rule had not been gazetted for 10 years after its finalization.
In a decision by Justice M Nagaprasanna, a single judge bench, the petition filed by Sharanya Mohan was partly allowed. The court quashed the corrigendum dated 17-06-2021, but only in relation to the petitioners.
The court stated that “Only for these petitioners, the action is considered illegal because the rule was not in force when it was attempted to be imposed on every student through bond execution.” However, it clarified that the law is still valid, and students cannot evade rural service obligations.
The Karnataka State Government notified the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. Subsequently, rules were established under this Act, known as the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006. Rule 11 of these rules was amended through a notification issued on 17-07-2012.
The amended Rule 11 requires candidates selected for medical seats in Government and private colleges under the Government quota to sign a bond. This bond states that the candidate is willing to serve in any Government Primary Health Centre or Government Primary Health Unit in rural areas of Karnataka for a minimum of one year upon completion of the course. Failure to fulfill this obligation would result in a penalty of ten lakhs rupees payable to the Government. These rules were to be effective from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
The petitioners contended that the bond was requested under the unnotified amended Rule 11, making it illegal. Additionally, they argued that the State Government lacked the legislative competence to notify Rule 11. They also pointed out that they were underage when they signed the bonds upon joining the medical courses, rendering the bonds unenforceable.
The government, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners cannot challenge the June 8, 2021 notification under the 2006 Rules, as at that time, Government quota students were considered a separate class. Furthermore, they argued that since the State later made compulsory service uniformly applicable to all through the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012, it cannot be deemed arbitrary and struck down.
The State further argued that Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules was notified under Section 14 of the Capitation Fee Act, which allows the Government to regulate the purposes of the Act through rules. According to the State, one such purpose of the Act is the one notified in 2006. There have been several notifications under the 2006 Rules. Regulation of admission in educational institutions is what Section 14 of the Capitation Act envisages, and therefore, Rule 11 falls within the scope of Section 14 as it aims to regulate admission to educational institutions.
Finding
Firstly, the bench referenced a previous judgment in Bushra Abdul Aleem v. Govt of Karnataka (2020), where it was held that imposing compulsory service does not violate the petitioners’ right to practice. The bench noted that although the judgment pertained to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the issue of legislative competence was similar, and the arguments presented were alike. Therefore, the ruling from the coordinate bench applied equally to the current case.
The court then dismissed the petitioners’ argument that the 2012 Act is contradictory to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. It cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of MP (2016), which acknowledged the State’s authority to regulate admissions to courses falling under List-III, Entry 25 (Education, including technical education, medical education, and universities).
Regarding the delay in notifying the amendment, the court stated that since the petitioners had secured seats in Government colleges or under the Government quota in private medical colleges, they should be required to undergo rural service in accordance with the law. However, as the amended Rule took effect 10 years after the Rules were promulgated, the court invalidated the corrigendum and ruled that the bonds executed by the petitioners were against the law. The court criticized the State for not implementing the Rule for a decade, stating that the Rule was incomplete until published in the Official Gazette, and thus, the State could not impose conditions on students based on an incomplete rule.
However, the court clarified that the State Government retains the liberty to introduce any circular, corrigendum, or even legislation consistent with the now-gazetted rule.
Before concluding, the court emphasized that mandatory rural service is not uncommon in the medical profession worldwide. Citing examples from countries where a similar system is in place, the court stated that students or medical graduates who benefit from the State’s welfare in obtaining a seat under the Government quota should not be exempt from this obligation.
The court further explained that the purpose behind mandating rural service is to improve healthcare in rural, tribal, or underserved areas where citizens may struggle to access medical care. The court expressed hope that medical graduates would willingly participate in such service in the future, contributing to a more equitable society and potentially realizing a utopian vision of healthcare delivery.
