A noteworthy event for Karnataka’s medical community is that 335 doctors have been given a temporary reprieve by the High Court of Karnataka, which has stayed the enforcement of a recent notification. This July 17, 2024, notification from the Commission rate of Health and Family Welfare Services required all doctors who had joined under private, management, or NRI quota seats and had finished their postgraduate medical courses in 2020–21 or earlier to register for online counseling in order to be assigned to one year of mandatory government service.
The interim ruling was made by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar in response to a petition that was brought by Suvetha P. and three other doctors. These medical experts disputed the notification’s relevance to their situations; they finished their courses in August 2023. The petitioners contended that since they finished their coursework prior to the January 29, 2024, effective date of the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses (Amendment) Act, 2023, the notification is not legally enforceable against them.
The main argument of the petition is that individuals who finished their courses prior to the 2023 amendment’s enactment should not be subject to its retroactive application. The 2023 amendment made various changes to the original 2012 Act. The first 2012 Act stipulated that mandatory government service would be paid at a rate approximately equal to the minimum gross income of a general duty physician. This clause was changed in the 2023 revision, nevertheless, as the phrase “fixed salary” was replaced with the less precise “salary to be specified by the government.” The petitioners contend that this alteration has a substantial effect on their future financial and professional opportunities.
Furthermore, the petitioners assert that after completing their courses, they were forced to release their credentials; they say this was done in order to impose adherence to the new mandatory service obligations. They further contend that the 2023 amendment changed the conditions under which they first consented to their courses by creating a number of exemptions and limiting the application of mandatory service to certain positions as decided by the government.
The High Court’s temporary injunction only pertains to the petitioners; it does not exempt all physicians in like circumstances. While the court considers the legality and ramifications of the notification in light of the most recent legislative amendments, this stay provides the petitioners with temporary respite.
SOURCE :
THE HINDU
