The Madras High Court in the case Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu observed and has held that the period of service which is being rendered during Covid-19 can be adjusted towards the two years of compulsory bond service, in the relief to five doctors. The bench headed by Justice CV Karthikeyan observed and has held that the Government should extend an arm to the doctors as there was no refusal to undergo the compulsory bond period but there being only a request to v The court observed that the Government has to extend arm to them and adjust that particular service is being rendered towards the two years of bond service which they had to undergo.
Therefore, there being no such refusal on their part to undergo the two years period but they only expect for seeking adjournment of the period which is already spent while treating covid-19 patients. It has been countered by the State in the plea stating that the petitioner doctors cannot take advantage of the service rendered treating Covid-19 patients during their study and expect that period is to be adjusted with the two years period. However, the said court disagreed with the submissions made by the respondent. It has also been noted by the court that the petitioners had voluntarily offered their medical services to treat the Covid-19 patients.
Therefore, they had undergone the same risk that other medical professionals had undergone. It has also been agreed by the court that the submissions made by the petitioner that they were being discriminated. Further, the said court hold that the petitioners herein would be reasonably justified if they were to opine that they stood discriminated when compared with those Post Graduate, medical professionals, who were not studying Super Specialty Courses merely because they being students and are doing Super Specialty Courses. Adding to it, the court stated that even though the petitioners could have easily avoided duty and sought protection by stating that they were students, thus, they did not do so and instead voluntarily offered their services.
However, the refusal by the respondents could not withstand judicial scrutiny as the same would be amounting to the discrimination to the petitioner doctors. It has also been directed by the court that the respondent is to adjust the period already completed and to return the educational certificate of the petitioners. Therefore, the court would give a a direction to the respondents to accommodate adjusting the period already completed with the bond period and return their educational certificates within the period of three weeks which being the date of receipt.
