Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1605 (MAD)

S. T. Bharath Khannan v. State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-03-20

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2025
ORDER : C.V. Karthikeyan, J. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking directions against the first respondent / the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai, to treat the study period of the petitioners who have either completed or are presently pursuing DNB/Post Diploma DNB Broad Specialty Course or the National Board of Examination in Medical Science (MNBEMS) Diploma Course in Tamil Nadu, Government Medical Colleges and Government Hospitals as continuation of service period and for further directions against the second respondent to pay salary during such study period on par with service doctors pursuing Post Graduate (MD/MS) Courses and or Post Graduate Diploma Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges and to direct the first to fourth respondents to conduct combined counselling for issuing posting orders as per Civil Medical List. 2. Since the issues raised in both the Writ Petitions are the same, namely, recognition of the period of study of the petitioners while pursuing DNB/ Post Diploma BNB Broad Specialty Course or National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) Diploma Course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges and Government Hospital as continuation of service period and for payment of salary for such period, a common order is passed. The petitioners also seek that combined counselling as per Civil Medical list must be held while issuing posting orders. 3. The only difference in the status between the petitioners in the two Writ Petitions is that the writ petitioners in W.P.No. 24796 of 2024 had completed or are pursuing DNB/Post Diploma DNB Broad Specialty courses, while the petitioners in W.P.No. 24792 of 2024 had completed or are pursuing National Board Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) Diploma Courses. 4. Let me take as an illustration the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No. 24796 of 2024. 5. In the affidavit, it had been contended that the writ petitioners have completed or are pursuing DNB /Post Diploma DNB Broad Specialty Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges at Government Hospitals. They had been appointed as Assistant Surgeons in Tamil Nadu Medical Services after completing their MBBS. 5. In the affidavit, it had been contended that the writ petitioners have completed or are pursuing DNB /Post Diploma DNB Broad Specialty Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges at Government Hospitals. They had been appointed as Assistant Surgeons in Tamil Nadu Medical Services after completing their MBBS. They have cleared the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test or the Diplomate of National Board and Post Diploma centralised Entrance Test (DNB-CET) and participated in online merit based counselling and had chosen the Diplomate of National Board / Post Diploma Diplomate of National Board Programme in various Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges and Government Hospitals. They had also put in reasonable period of service in Tamil Nadu Medical Services. They had joined the DNB Course with the belief that their entire study period would be treated as continuation of service and that they would be paid salary during the study period. Similarly placed candidates, who are pursuing MD/MS courses had the benefit of their study period being treated as continuation of service and of salary being paid. But however, the petitioners were denied the payment of salary and it was also held out that the study period would not be treated as continuation of service. 6. It had been contended that the courses which they are pursuing are recognised and they are also serving as Doctors in Government Medical Colleges and Government Hospitals even during their study period. It is under those circumstances, since representations given were of no avail, the Writ Petitions had been filed. 7. The petitioners in W.P.No. 24792 of 2024 are also Assistant Surgeons in Tamil Nadu Medical Services and during the online merit based counselling, they had chosen the National Board of examination in Medical Science (NBEMS) Diploma programme in various Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals. They have also been denied salary and continuity in service during the study period. Representations given by them have also not been answered to their satisfaction. It is under those circumstances that they had also filed the Writ Petition. 8. They have also been denied salary and continuity in service during the study period. Representations given by them have also not been answered to their satisfaction. It is under those circumstances that they had also filed the Writ Petition. 8. A counter affidavit had been filed by the third respondent / Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, represented by the Director of Medical Health and Rural Health Services, wherein it had been contended that the entire study period would be treated as study leave and the petitioners were permitted to undergo the courses on availing extraordinary leave without medical certificate. They would also be paid stipend as per Government Orders issued by the Government from time to time. It had also been contended that the study period of the service candidates undergoing PG/Diploma Courses in Medical Colleges under State Quota had been treated as on duty for all purposes vide G.O.Ms.No. 2036, dated 12.01.1981. However, the Assistant Surgeons selected for Post Graduation in Self Financing Institution /Deemed Universities are sanctioned extraordinary leave without any break in service. It had been stated that by G.O.(D).No. 98, Health and Family Welfare (MCA-2) Department, dated 25.01.2023, the stipend payable had been enhanced to Rs.48,000/- onwards with effect from 29.07.2021. It had been stated that in the prospectus, it had been very clearly stated that the salary would not be paid and that the stipend alone would be paid. 9. The fifth respondent had also filed a counter affidavit wherein it had been stated that the fifth respondent has prescribed guidelines for payment of stipend to trainees. It had been contended that the rules and regulations relating to service period and payment of salaries is the prerogative of the State Government. 10. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and by Ms. M.Sneha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5 and Ms. Subbha Ranjani Anandh, learned Standing Counsel for the seventh respondent. 11. The issues raised in these Writ Petitions relate to regularisation of study period of the writ petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and for the study period to be counted as continuation of Government service and for salary to be paid during the said study period and seeking combined counselling as per Civil Medical list. 12. 11. The issues raised in these Writ Petitions relate to regularisation of study period of the writ petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and for the study period to be counted as continuation of Government service and for salary to be paid during the said study period and seeking combined counselling as per Civil Medical list. 12. The writ petitioners in both the Writ Petitions had been pursing Post Graduation courses which are recognised by the respondent. However, they are paid stipend during the period of study. Even the fifth respondent in their counter affidavit had stated that stipend alone had been determined to be paid to those students who pursue Post Graduation courses like the petitioners. The first respondent had also passed Government Orders enhancing the stipend. There is no dispute that the stipend as determined is paid to the petitioners. But however, a fervent plea had been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their study period should be counted as continuation of service as is done for students who pursue MD/MS in Government Colleges. Strong objections had been raised on behalf of the Government for consideration of the study period as continuation in service. It had been contended that even in the prospectus, it had been very specifically stated that the study period shall be treated only as earned leave without medical certificate. 13. With respect to the payment of salary, it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fifth respondent, the National Board of Examination and Medical Science, New Delhi that stipend alone is payable to the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions. Unless that policy is challenged, it may not be possible for this Court to direct consideration of any representation in that regard. 14. With respect to the issue of treating the study period as continuation of service, I would direct the first respondent to examine the representations given by the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions to treat the study period as continuation of service and grant notional service benefits alone and during such study period, for the purposes of pension and other such benefits. The petitioners are Government servants having joined as Assistant Surgeons and they would be put to disadvantage if the study period is treated otherwise and as a break in service. The petitioners are Government servants having joined as Assistant Surgeons and they would be put to disadvantage if the study period is treated otherwise and as a break in service. There is no reason why the petitioners should be discriminated against in this regard since even during the study period, they discharge work in Government Hospitals and Colleges. They are not strangers to the respondents. 15. With respect to the issue of conducting combined counselling as per Civil Medical list, I hold that the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and their ilk are entitled to participate in the counselling held for Civil Medical list. A Mandamus is issued accordingly. 16. In view of these reasons, I would direct issue a Mandamus in both the Writ Petitions to the first respondent to consider the period of study by the writ petitioners as continuation of service period for all purposes and also to permit the petitioners to participate in the combined Counselling as per Civil Medical list. 18. I am not prepared to issue a Mandamus with respect to the relief sought for payment of salary since the policy of the National Board Examinations in Medical Sciences/fifth respondent is also to pay stipend to similarly placed students and that policy had not been challenged in manner known to law. 18. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. No order as to costs.