SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ker) 756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. ASHA, J.
Dr. Minnu G. Dev, W/o. Allen Kuriakose & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 20906 & 21117 of 2020
Decided On : 03-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Roy Chacko, Sri. K.C. Vincent.
For the Respondent: Smt. Aiswarya V.S., Sri. Arun B. Varghese, SR.GP. Sri. V. Manu.

IMPORTANT POINT
The certificates which were withheld by the College were not the certificate entrusted with them at the time of admission but were the course completion certificates, for which there was no enabling provision. The certificates which were entrusted at the time of admission were already returned.

Headnote:

Constitution of India-Art.226-G.O.(Rt).No.1366/2017/H&FWD dated 15.05.2017 -Notification issued by the Govt. with respect to the Colleges -Withholding of any Certificates -Given either at the time of admission or on completion of the course-Bond was obtained from the students of MES College at the time of admission-Condition regarding liquidated damages- Certificates which are to be submitted at the time of admission will be released only after the completion of the bonded service or in the case of bond violation, liquidated damages shall be paid

Statement of facts:

Petitioners in both these cases completed Post Graduate Degree Course from the second respondent Self Financing Medical College. The common complaint of the petitioners is that their certificates are retained by the second respondent on the ground that they have executed a bond agreeing to serve the Institution for a period of one year as Senior Resident/Tutor/Demonstrator. Petitioners claim that the issue raised by them is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.25957 of 2018 and judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.19125 of 2019 and 18862 of 2019.

Finding of the court:

Allotments to all seats in Self Financing Colleges were made from the rank list prepared by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination based on NEET PG examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations, as in the case of all other Medical and Dental Colleges. Ext.P1 order would show that combined counselling was made in all Medical/Dental Colleges including self financing colleges, pursuant to the direction in the OM dated 10.03.2017 of the Government of India

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners in both these cases completed Post Graduate Degree Course from the second respondent Self Financing Medical College. The common complaint of the petitioners is that their certificates are retained by the second respondent on the ground that they have executed a bond agreeing to serve the Institution for a period of one year as Senior Resident/Tutor/Demonstrator. Petitioners claim that the issue raised by them is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.25957 of 2018 and judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.19125 of 2019 and 18862 of 2019.

2. It is stated that petitioners joined the second respondent College after they completed MBBS Degree and underwent the Post Graduate Course on securing admission under the State Merit Quota during 2017-2018. The said course was for a period of three years and results were published on 04.09.2020. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20906 of 2020 underwent the Post Graduate Course in Gynaecology and Community Medicine respectively; whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21117 of 2020 underwent PG courses in Psychiatry, Radiodiagnosis, Pediatrics, Otorhinolarynegology and Ophthalmology respectively. Petitioners have executed a bond in tune with the provisions contained in G.O.(Rt).No.1366/2017/H&FWD dated 15.05.2017 (Ext.P1). The execution of the bond was compulsory for admission to the Post Graduate Course. One of the Clauses in the bond is to the effect that they would serve the Institution as compensation for making available the facilities required for their PG Studies by the Govt. and the Management. On completion of the course and on publication of results, petitioners requested the College to return their certificates. But the respondents insisted that they have to abide by the conditions in the bond and have to serve the Institution for one more year.

3. Petitioners submit that the College did not grant any stipend to them after December 2019. It is also their case that withholding of certificates does not form part of the order Ext.P1. According to them, the bond agreeing for one year service in the Institution is required only for admission to Govt. Colleges. Petitioners pointed out that the respondent College rejected their request for returning the certificates and directed them to serve the Institution for a period of one year, relying on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.2392 of 2016.

4. The College-the Second respondent College as well as the Principal of the College-the 3rd respondent have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners are bound by the provisions in the bond executed by them agreeing to serve the Institution for a period of one year. According to them the petitioners got admission in the College in accordance with the provision contained in Ext.R3(a) Prospectus and they are fully aware of the provisions therein. It is stated that all the petitioners have executed bonds agreeing to serve the Institution for a period of one year as Senior Residents at the rate fixed by Govt. after the successful completion of their PG Course. It is stated that Clause 12-2.7 of Ext.R3(a) Prospectus provides that the certificates which the petitioners submitted in the Colleges at the time of admission need be released only after the completion of compulsory bonded service or in the event of violation of the conditions in the bond, they shall pay liquidated damages. According to respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners have not challenged the said provisions contained in the Prospectus. According to the respondents the judgments relied on by the petitioners i.e., Exts.P4 to P6 do not relate to provisions like 12-2.7 of the Prospectus. It is stated that judgment of this Court relied on by the petitioners was taken up before the Apex Court by one of the Colleges and as per Ext.R3(b) order dated 09.05.2019 the Apex Court has ordered that the release of the certificate shall not be treated as a precedent. It is stated that the said Civil Appeal is pending.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top