The petition was submitted by Dr P. Balakrishan before the single bench N. Anand Venkatesh and it was filed under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Certioraraified Mandamus to quash the impugned transfer and posting order made on 30th October 2019 issued by the Director, Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services (MRHS), Chennai and the petitioner wanted to be reinstated to the post as Senior Resident or Civil Surgeon in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in Stanley Medical College and Hospital, Chennai. The learned Advocate representing the Government also submitted that a meeting will be convened before 8th January 2019 and the further development will be reported to the court. The learned counsel representing the petitioner questioned the impugned orders primarily on the grounds of malafides. There was a submission which was presented before the bench that there were more than 18,000 doctors participated in the agitation and the respondents have picked and chosen 135 doctors were identified as officer bearers. The transfer of doctors was totally against the public interest and the petitioner was transferred to a place where they have no work to do and all their experience is going in waste. They could not contribute for the welfare of public and some of the petitioners’ retorted that there were individual grievances which were not taken into consideration before the order was passed.
The learned Advocate General submitted that whatever may be the situation and their demands, they aren’t expected to go on strike as it will have a direct impact on the life and welfare of the patients who are taking the treatment in public governmental hospitals and steps taken by the Government was extreme and the same cannot be made as a subject matter for challenging by filing writ petitions. The learned counsel representing for Government relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana of 2006 12 SCC 28. The contention raised by the petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of Director of Medical and Rural Health Services issuing transfer and posting orders and the counsel relied upon the affidavit (additional) filed by the said authority.
Later, it was pointed out by Justice that;
“Doctors going on a strike/boycott are a very rare phenomenon which does not happen very often. Unfortunately, the Government pushed the Doctors to take the extreme step and now the Government wants to punish those Doctors and warn them not to make any demands in future. This attitude of the Government requires a change. This judgment must ultimately go in favour of the larger public interest involved in the present case. This can happen only if both the parties come together and find an early solution for the pending issues”.
Key-Features:-
- Neither the Government nor Doctors were winner or losers in this litigation.
- The Government must focus on finding solutions to the problems faced by the doctors.
- The entire incident could have been avoided by the Government but it happened due to inaction.
- Government as a morale employer needs to care on the course of their policy.
- The person spearheaded the protest alone “should not be assigned the role of a villain and singled out and dealt with in such a harsh manner.”
Edited by J. Madonna Jephi
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
Reference
- Bar & Bench, Doctors do not have right to strike/boycott under any circumstance: Madras High Court https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/doctors-do-not-have-right-to-strikeboycott-under-any-circumstance-madras-high-court-read-judgment
