The mandatory one-year rural service requirement for MBBS students was lifted by the Karnataka High Court in 2012. Rule 11 of the 2006 Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules was amended to make this feasible. The Court made it clear that pupils are obligated to attend rural schools and that the rules’ legitimacy is maintained for the foreseeable future.
Policy delay.
The court found that there was “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.” Ten years after it was finished, the modified rule was still not listed in the official gazette. The regulations are in effect as of right now, and students who are accepted into government universities or private colleges through government quotas are unable to avoid the requirements of the rules, which include performing mandatory rural service or posting bonds.
The Rule was not in effect on the day that it was intended to be implemented or enforced onto every student by the signing of bonds, therefore the conduct is only deemed unlawful for these petitioners. As a result, a contract that is executed and references a rule that was never implemented is invalid on its own. It is inadmissible to argue that the notification would remain valid even if the regulation was not published in the Official Gazette. As a result, it is decided that the petitioners’ signed bonds are illegal.”
The State Government published a notification on the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. In compliance with this Act, the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006 were developed. On July 17, 2012, Rule 11 of these Rules was modified by notice.
Candidates chosen for medical seats at government and private colleges under the government quota were required to provide a bond under the modified Rule 11. They were required under this bond to serve for at least a year following the completion of their training at any Government Primary Health Center or Government Primary Health Unit located in rural Karnataka. There will be a 10 lakh rupee fine for not doing so. The day these regulations were published in the Official Gazette marked their implementation.
Under the amended Rule 11, candidates selected for medical seats at government and private institutions under the government quota were obliged to furnish a bond. As a condition of this bond, they had to work in any Government Primary Health Center or Government Primary Health Unit in rural Karnataka for a minimum of a year after completing their training. Failure to do so may result in a punishment of 10 lakh rupees. The effective date of these rules was the day they were published in the Official Gazette.
The government objected to the plea, claiming that because government quota students were a separate class at the time and the Notification of June 8, 2021 was issued in accordance with the 2006 Rules, the petitioners could not challenge it. Moreover, the State maintained that mandatory service could not be considered arbitrary because it was later made universally applicable by the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012.
In addition, the State argued that Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules was notified in accordance with Section 14 of the Capitation Fee Act, which gives the Government the authority to control the Act’s objectives through rules. As to the State, one of the objectives of Section 14 of the Capitation Act is to regulate admittance at educational institutions; hence, Rule 11 is encompassed under its purview.
The High Court noted that “making the legislation public is a necessary condition for a regulation pertaining to notice to take effect. Publication in the Official Gazette becomes obligatory and binding in order to make it public.” Taking this into consideration, the Court dismissed the argument that the notification would remain valid even if the regulation was not published in the Official Gazette.
