HEMANT KUMAR VERMA & Ors. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & Ors.

Judgment

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. 184 [2022] 7 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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.