Supreme Court asks ESI Corporation: What is the term of bond for junior doctors who completed MBBS from ESIC institutions?

The Supreme Court in the case Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors. v ESIC & Ors observed and asked Employees State Insurance Corporation to confirm if the term of the bond for doctors who have completed MBBS from ESIC-run institutions to serve such ESIC-run institutions have been changed from a term of one year from five years. In this regard, an affidavit has been sought by the Court from the ESIC. The vacation bench comprising of Justice CT Ravikumar and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while considering a writ petition filled by the Junior Resident Doctors of ESIC hospitals seeking to be included in 50% in service doctor’s quota for PG courses. Advocate Sachin Patil, appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per ESIC’s policy, only IMO-II i.e., doctors who are recruited by ESIC working in the ESIC institutions have been given 50% reservation in PG medical seats in the ESIC Hospitals. The counsel further that the Junior Resident Doctors have even executed a bond of serving Hospitals of ESIC as in service candidates for the period of five years. The submissions were countered by the ESIC regarding the bond-term period of five years and submitted that on November 24, 2020., a decision was taken and the tenure has been changed. The Counsel submitted that the tenure of the bond was reduced from the period of 5 years to 1 year They are basically alumni of ESIC hospital & they’re only required to serve for 1 year. Now there’s another cadre of doctors. NBE provides for a 50% quota for the in-house doctors. The bench while considering the submissions made by the council asked the ESIC’s counsel to place on record by way of an affidavit the submission with regards to change in the policy of bond. In the plea it is stated that Though Petitioners are similarly placed junior resident doctors like IMO- II but they are not held to be eligible for said 50% quota of ESIC Hospitals. The policy violates Article 14 of the Constitution; thus, the policy is arbitrary and discriminatory. Moreover, it was submitted that ESIC has been granting benefit of reservation to one set of in-service candidates and denying said benefit to another set of in-service candidates, when both are similarly placed and are at par. In the petition it was also contended by the resident doctor that they are entitled for the reservation of PG seats in the ESIC medical Institutions on account of institutional reservation or preference system since these institutions are the alumni of the same institution.