Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): A doctor was denied a job under MP Medical and Post-graduation Course Admission Rules in 2017. The state also took away his original documents, leaving him unemployed and unmarried for five years.
He remains unmarried at the age of 39 as he has no job in hand to start a family. Moreover, no father was ready to give him their daughter’s hand in marriage.
Yet, he was all smiles on Thursday when the Madhya Pradesh High Court gave him relief, directing the government to return his documents.
The 39-year-old Dr Rahul Mittal had finished his post-graduation diploma in 2017 from Gajra Raja Government Medical College, Gwalior, he said.
“I never received any appointment letter from the government to work in the rural areas of the state. If there is no appointment within three months, the bond with the state remains dismissed. But the state neither gave me a job nor returned my original document. On the top of that, they kept harassing me, confiscating my bond amount of Rs 8 lakh from the bank,” he said.
He was deprived of help from the health commissioner and director of medical education, he said.
The pre-PG Rules 2014 mentions that the state has to offer an appointment to a rural area within three months of completing the degree and on failing to do so the bond is dismissed and documents are returned to the candidate, Mittal’s counsel Aditya Sanghi told Free Press.
He was planning to serve the state government for a year and then proceed to pursue higher studies, said Mittal.
“With no job in hand and no wife in life, I had lived past five years like nobody. I shifted to Agra and have been doing menial jobs to sustain myself,” he said.
Mittal had filed a petition in 2018 in the High Court, which pronounced its decision on Monday and published the same on Thursday.
It was urged by the deputy advocate general for the state Janhvi Pandit that the order of the pre-PG Rules was in two parts. A careful reading of the second part of the order shows that candidates were required to furnish the bond or pay the amount as per bond, she had said.
The bench led by justices Sujoy Paul and Dwarka Dhish Bansal said, “We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in this order, there is nothing which prevents the State Government to issue appointment orders to the petitioner.”
“The Rules make it specifically clear that petitioner should have been automatically released from the bond conditions,” they further said.
