The Karnataka High Court has exempted 447 MBBS students from the compulsory rural service requirement stipulated under the 2012 amendment of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006. This decision arose because the amended rule was not officially gazetted for ten years after its finalization.
Details of the Case
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single-judge bench, partly approved the petition filed by Sharanya Mohan and others. The court nullified the corrigendum dated June 17, 2021, specifically for these petitioners. The court declared the enforcement of the rural service bond invalid due to the rule not being in effect at the time it was imposed. However, the court clarified that this ruling applies only to these petitioners, and the rural service law is otherwise valid.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the bonds they signed were based on the unnotified amended Rule 11, rendering them illegal. They also claimed that the state lacked the legislative competence to enforce Rule 11. Furthermore, many of the students were under 18 when they signed the bonds, making the agreements unenforceable.
State Government’s Counter Arguments
The state government contended that the 2021 notification under the 2006 Rules could not be challenged. It argued that the compulsory service mandate was later uniformly applied through the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012. The state also asserted that Rule 11 was within the scope of the Capitation Fee Act, which allows the government to regulate educational admissions.
Court’s Findings
The court referenced a previous judgment (Bushra Abdul Aleem v. Govt of Karnataka, 2020), affirming that compulsory service does not violate the fundamental right to practice. It rejected the petitioners’ claim that the 2012 Act was incompatible with the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, citing a Supreme Court ruling (Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of MP, 2016) that upheld state authority to regulate education.
Regarding the delay in notification, the court acknowledged the state’s inaction over ten years, stating that imposing conditions based on an unpublished rule was improper. It quashed the bonds signed by the petitioners but permitted the state to issue new regulations in line with the now-gazetted rule.
Mandatory Rural Service Justification
The court highlighted that compulsory rural service is common globally for medical professionals. It highlighted the importance of such service in improving healthcare access in rural areas and expressed hope that medical graduates would eventually volunteer for rural service, contributing to an egalitarian society.
Case Title: Dr. Sharanya Mohan & Others vs. Union of India & OthersWRIT PETITION Nos. 7435, 10079, 10297, 10374, 10379, 10381, 10751 of 2021 (EDN – RES) and WRIT PETITION No. 2137 of 2022 (EDN – RES)