In a writ petition made by the three doctors seeking relief, in representative capacity on behalf of 92 other doctors, stating that list of placements for mandatory public service was “arbitrary prepared” without bearing in mind a binding decision of a co- ordinate Bench of the High Court as well as ignoring the merits of the respective candidates. In view of the pandemic, the government requested for placement of the successful doctors to complete the period of service in terms of the bond executed by them. A list of doctors has been published on 23rd September, 2020, whereby the doctors named therein have been directed to report at the hospitals/ colleges mentioned against their names. They were to be sought setting aside of the list as well as for direction on the state to display all the available seats meant for candidates, who executed bonds, and to allow such candidates to fill up their preferences , which would lead to their selection in accordance with merit as was followed till the academic year 2019-20. It was noted that the interim prayers made in the writ petition were also substantially the same, except that instead of setting aside of the list, stay of operation thereof has been prayed for. In the case of Deoraj Vs. State of Maharastra reported that “situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself. It was stated that the court grant the interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice.
It was also to be appeared that there was a time period of 9.5 months to be remaining before the completion of their mandatory service. Therefore, refusal to grant interim relief, as claimed, may not render the writ petition infructuous. As per , in these difficult times of the pandemic, people in the rural areas need adequate medical treatment and we are of the prime facie opinion that doctors like the petitioners and the others should regard the call for service to be rendered as a call for joining ‘national duty’, so as to reach out to the distressed and the needy.
Thus the court observed that the “grant of interim relief as claimed would cause more prejudice to the respondents than refusal to grant interim relief would cause to the petitioners” and directed the petitioners and all doctors to report to their duties respectively by October 13, 2020.