REKHA PALLI, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the Petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to release their original documents, which were retained by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the Petitioners’ failure to abide by the terms of the surety bond executed by them at the time of their admission in the institutes of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The case set up by the petitioners is that, based on AIPGMEE counseling held in June, 2014, both the petitioners were selected as PG Trainee as M.S. (General Surgery) and, in accordance with the Information Bulletin for the admission to Post-Graduate courses, they had executed a surety bond to serve as Short Service Commission Officers (SSC Officers) for five years with the Armed Forces Medical Services and pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in case they were unwilling to join as SSC Officers upon completion of the said course.

3. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioners, while taking admission, had deposited their original MBBS certificates with the Academic Cell of the Respondent No. 2 and had also executed the surety bond of Rs.25,00,000/-. Though learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that the petitioners were compelled to execute the said surety bonds, it is the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that, the said surety bonds were executed willingly by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, upon the petitioners successfully completing the M.S. Course and undergoing the requisite training, they were issued certificates to the effect that they had passed the M.S. Course, based on which they applied for the Super Specialty Course by appearing for the NEET Super Speciality M.Ch. Course – 2017. She contends that, despite being successful in the NEET Exam and having successfully completed their M.S. Course, the Petitioners have not been able to take admission in higher courses and appear in the counseling for the Super Speciality M.Ch. Course, for want of the requisite original documents, which have been illegally retained by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 only because the petitioners, instead of joining service as SSC Officers, are desirous of undergoing higher studies. She, further, submits that the petitioners have written various letters to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requesting them to release the original documents but to no avail.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, opposes the present petition by contending that, once the petitioners had admittedly violated the terms of the surety bond, whereby they had agreed to serve the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as SSC Officers for a period of five years, they cannot now seek release of the original documents without paying the requisite bond amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. He, further, submits that while undergoing the said course, the petitioners have been paid a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- by way of stipend and, therefore, contends that there is no justification on their part to demand the release of their original documents without paying the agreed sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, especially when they have received a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- each from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 themselves by way of stipend. While refuting the submissions of the petitioners, that they had been coerced into executing the said surety bond, he further submits that the petitioners had willingly taken admission in the institutes run by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as they are very prestigious medical institutions. He further submits that, even though the fees in the said colleges were highly subsidised, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also further paid a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- to each of the Petitioners.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are fully justified in contending that the petitioners ought to have serv