Hemant Kumar Verma & Ors. vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

22 July 2022

Case No.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2022

Result

Dismissed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna

Citation

[2022] 7 S.C.R. 184 : 2022 INSC 744

Headnote

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.

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 inst

View Subscription Plans →