'Amended Rule Not Published For Over 10 Years': Karnataka HC Waives Compulsory Rural Service Requirement For Petitioner Doctors; Upholds Validity Of Rural Service For Furture

The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to MBBS students from the requirement of compulsory one-year rural service, which was mandated under the 2012 amendment of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006. The Court clarified that the validity of the Rules is upheld for the purpose of the future, and students cannot escape from rural service.

Noting that the amended rule had not been published in the official gazette for ten years after its finalization, the Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, "illegality in the execution of bonds in terms of Amended Rule 11, insofar as it pertains to a period prior to the notification of the Rules in the Official Gazette i.e., on 22-07-2022. Today the Rules are in place and the students who would get admitted to Government Colleges or students get admitted to private colleges under the Government quota cannot now escape the rigour of compulsory rural service or execution of bonds in terms of the Rules. It is only for these petitioners the action is held to be illegal in the teeth of the Rule not being in force as on the date on which it was sought to be implemented/imposed upon every student through execution of bonds. Therefore, a contract that is executed, drawing its source to a Rule that had never come into force, is by itself a void contract. The submission that mere non-publication of the rule in the Official Gazette would not vitiate the notification is unacceptable. Therefore, the bonds that are executed by the petitioners are held to be contrary to law."

The State Government notified the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. Under this Act, the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006 were formulated. Rule 11 of these Rules was amended through a notification on July 17, 2012.

The amended Rule 11 required candidates selected for medical seats in Government and private colleges under the Government quota to sign a bond. This bond obligated them to serve in any Government Primary Health Centre or Government Primary Health Unit in rural areas of Karnataka for at least one year after completing their course. Failure to do so would result in a penalty of ten lakhs rupees. These rules became effective from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

The petitioners argued that the bond was required under the amended Rule 11, which was never properly notified, making the bond illegal. They also claimed that the State Government lacked the legislative authority to notify Rule 11. Additionally, the petitioners contended that the bonds were signed when they joined medical courses and were under 18 years old, making the bonds unenforceable.

The government opposed the plea, arguing that the Notification of June 8, 2021, issued under the 2006 Rules, could not be questioned by the petitioners because, at that time, Government quota students were a distinct class. Furthermore, the State argued that since compulsory service was later made uniformly applicable through the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012, it could not be deemed arbitrary.

The State also contended that Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules was notified under Section 14 of the Capitation Fee Act, which allows the Government to regulate the purposes of the Act through Rules. According to the State, regulating admission in educational institutions is one of the purposes contemplated by Section 14 of the Capitation Act, and thus, Rule 11 falls within its scope.

The High Court observed that, "for a rule in terms of a notification to come into effect, the requirement to make the statute public is mandatory. To make it public, publication in the Official Gazette becomes mandatory and binding."

In light of the same, the Court rejected the contention that mere non-publication of the rule in the Official Gazette would not vitiate the notification.

Cause Title: Dr Sharanya Mohan & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment