LexHEMANT KUMAR VERMA & ORS. versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. HEMANT KUMAR VERMA & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2022) JULY 22, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Service Law – Reservation in Post Graduate Medical Course – Junior Resident Doctors and Regular ESIC Doctors – Petitioners are Junior Resident doctors – The respondent-ESIC recruits Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II (IMO-II) through written examination and interview – ESIC provides a fifty per cent reservation for “in-service” doctors in the post-graduate seats in institutions run by ESIC – While the post of IMO-II is included within the ambit of ‘in-service’ doctors, the junior doctors are not – ESIC invited applications from ‘in-service’ doctors of ESI Medical colleges – The petitioner made several representations to the respondent for consideration in the ‘in-service’ quota – Since, there was no response from the respondent, the petitioners approached Supreme Court – Held: The crucial difference between junior residents and IMO- II is that while the former is a contractual post where the doctors are employed directly due to the bond condition on the completion of the MBBS degree, the latter is a permanent post – The reservation for ‘in-service’ candidates is an incentive and an added benefit to the IMO-II doctors who will be serving in the respondent-institution till superannuation – There is a clear distinction in law between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors – The ‘in-service’ quota is, therefore, justifiably made available to the latter category – The petitioners cannot claim parity with regularly recruited insurance medical officers in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota. Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 – followed. Yatin Kuma Jasubahi v. State of Gujarat (2019) 10 SCC 1 : [2019] 12 SCR 848; Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 - relied on. [2022] 7 S.C.R. 184 184 A B C D E F G H 185 Case Law Reference [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 followed Para 6 [2019] 12 SCR 848 relied on Para 6 [1984] 3 SCR 942 relied on Para 9 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2022. Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Advs. for the Petitioners. Manish Kumar Saran, Shivam Singh, Nirvikar Singh, Harsh Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The respondent - Employees State Insurance Corporation1 - is a statutory body created under the Employees’ State Insurance Act 19482. Act 18 of 2010 inserted Section 59(B) in the Act of 1948 which stipulates that the Corporation may establish medical colleges, nursing colleges, and training institutions for its employees to improving the quality of services provided under the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme. The petitioners are junior residents who have completed their undergraduate medical course at medical institutions run by the ESIC. Undergraduate medical students pursuing their education in institutions conducted by the ESIC have to serve in the institutions as junior residents. The petitioners were required to serve a five year bond as junior residents. 2. The respondent-institutions recruit Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II3 through a written examination followed by an interview. ESIC provides a fifty per cent reservation for “in-service” doctors in the post- graduate seats available in medical institutions run by ESIC. While the post of IMO-II is included within the ambit of ‘in-service’ doctors, the junior doctors are not. The respondent issued a notice on 10 November 2021 inviting applications from eligible ‘in-service’ doctors of ESI Medical colleges. The petitioners made representations on 11 February 2022, 4 1 “ESIC/ respondent-institute” 2 “Act of 1948" 3 ‘IMO-II” HEMANT KUMAR VERMA v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION A B C D E F G H 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. March 2022, and 25 April 2022 to the respondent-institution seeking to be considered in the ‘in-service’ quota for DNB courses. Since there was no response from the respondent-institution, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. The petitioners’ have sought the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction to Respondents to decl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.