The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the validity of the compulsory service bond for medical students, based on the interpretation of contractual clauses and the application of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sections 23 and 27.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

A few students, under All India Quota (NEET), joined the post-graduate medical courses, both in Government and private colleges. At the time of their joining the course, the students’ parents executed a bond with the college management. The bond stipulated that the students would have their certificates-submitted during admission-released only after their completing “one-year compulsory employment or on payment of the compensation… .”

2. The bond provides for remedial mechanism if the student breaches the condition: the student’s failing to serve in the State the mandatory period of one-year or, in the alternative, failing to compensate the State, the management can compel the parent to compensate; the recovery may be from the parent’s properties, movable or immovable. Many students from other states, after passing out, refused to comply with the bond conditions; instead they questioned them. It led to litigation across the nation, Kerala included.

Facts:

3. We have before us a batch of writ appeals filed by a medical college, the Government, and a few students, too. In these appeals the students insist that their certificates be returned without penalty imposed on them. We tabulate the cases:

Writ Appeal Writ Petition No. of Students State of Origin

2457 of 2016 31101 of 2016 6 Kerala (2)

Tamil Nadu (2)

Madhya Pradesh (1)

Karnataka (1)

2392 of 2016 31690 of 2016 15 Karnataka (2)

Tamil Nadu (10)

Maharashtra (3)

1726 of 2017 18634 of 2017 1 Chattisgarh

WA Nos.2457 of 2016 and 2392 of 2016:

4. Both WP (C) Nos.31101 of 2016 and 31690 of 2016 were disposed of through a common judgment. The students’ claim was for return of their educational certificates. Given their unwillingness to fulfil the bond conditions, the colleges refused to part with the certificates. It led to the students' filing two writ petitions. On merits, the learned Single Judge has anchored his reasoning on Clause 2.2 of the Ext.P1 Prospectus/Information Bulletin for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Post Graduate). The clause cautions the students that their mere appearance for the test does “not confer any automatic rights to score a Post Graduate MD/MS/Post Diploma Seat.” The students’ admission is subject to their fulfilling the admission criteria as may be prescribed by the respective universities, medical institutions, Medical Council of India, State/Central Government.” Further, the learned Single Judge has repelled the students’ claim by referring to the Ext.P7 prospectus issued by the State Government.

5. So the learned Single Judge did not find any illegality or arbitrariness either by the Government or the colleges. Thus both the writ petitions dismissed, the students appealed.

W.A. No.1726 of 2017:

6. One student got admitted under All India Quota into Medical PG Course of the Government Medical College, completed the course, and later demanded the college to return her certificates. Faced with refusal, she filed W.P. (C) No.18634 of 2017: that the State Government can impose no conditions for compulsory state service on students admitted under the All India Quota.

7. A learned Single Judge, through judgment, dt.27.06.2017, allowed the writ petition. The judgment, in fact, notes that this Court in Shireen v. State of Kerala, (2017) 2 KLT 691 has held that the condition is opposed to public policy-section 23 of the Contract Act. It also notes that another learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.31690 of 2016 (now in appeal) took a different stand. So the judgment advises the student to await the issue resolution in appellate proceedings. But it also directs the Government “to release the original certificates” forthwith, besides clarifying that the judgment “will not preclude the State from instituting appropriate proceedings for realizing the liquidated damages” from the students.

Submissions:

Students’:

8. The learned counsel for the students contend that neither the college nor the Government has any authority to withhold