Archive · 22 Sep 2026
High Court Upholds Service Bonds for Subsidised Medical Graduates
A doctor studied medicine at a government institute at a subsidised cost.
Her admission required her to work for the government for two years afterward.
She argued that the promise should end because the government did not give her a posting quickly enough.
The Allahabad High Court disagreed and said the service bond still applied.
The court said these bonds help keep doctors available in government hospitals.
However, it found that she was unfairly left out of the correct counselling process.
The government must hold fresh counselling and let her select from available posts.
The 89 days she already worked will count toward her two-year obligation.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that doctors trained at subsidised rates in government institutions must complete mandatory government service.
The court rejected Dr Aparupa Sen Gupta’s argument that a delayed posting automatically ended her two-year service bond.
The bench said the service requirement supports staffing in government hospitals and protects patients’ right to life.
The court ordered fresh counselling because Sen Gupta was excluded from the applicable counselling process due to a batch-year mismatch.
Her 89 days as a senior resident at SGPGI will count toward the bond, and she will remain there until fresh counselling is completed.
- Who
- The Allahabad High Court, Dr Aparupa Sen Gupta, and the Uttar Pradesh government.
- What
- The court upheld the mandatory two-year government service bond for a doctor who received subsidised postgraduate medical education, while ordering fresh counselling.
- When
- The ruling was reported on September 22; the state was directed to complete fresh counselling within four weeks from September 27, 2026.
- Where
- The case was heard in Lucknow and concerns service in Uttar Pradesh government medical institutions.
- Why
- The court said the bond helps ensure doctors are available in government hospitals and protects patients’ right to life.
Doctor's contention
Court's ruling
Effect of delayed posting
Doctor's contention
Sen Gupta argued that the government’s failure to provide a posting within three months meant her two-year service bond had lapsed.
Court's ruling
The court held that no Uttar Pradesh provision automatically discharged a doctor from the bond because of such a delay.
Counselling eligibility
Doctor's contention
The doctor was denied an opportunity to participate in the counselling process used for bond service.
Court's ruling
The court found fault with that exclusion and ordered fresh counselling because the notification covered different batches.
Purpose of the bond
Doctor's contention
The doctor challenged continued enforcement of the bond after the posting delay.
Court's ruling
The court said the requirement serves the public interest by supporting government hospitals and protecting patients’ right to life.
- Doctor
- Dr Aparupa Sen Gupta
- Qualification
- MD in Transfusion Medicine from SGPGI, Lucknow
- Bond requirement
- Two years of compulsory government service
- Court finding
- A delay in providing a posting does not automatically extinguish the bond
- Service credit
- Eighty-nine days worked as a senior resident will count toward the bond
- Court direction
- Fresh counselling must allow the doctor to choose from eligible vacancies
- Interim arrangement
- Sen Gupta will continue working as a senior resident at SGPGI until counselling is completed