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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Divya K.S., D/o. Soman K. Nair and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Hon’ble Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Kerala and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 37369 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Tittu Jose Chackanad.
For the Respondents: Sri. Binny Thomas, Sri. Vivek Menon, Sri. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Sri. P. Sreekumar (Sr.), Sri. Abraham P. Meachinkara., SC Sri. P.G. Pramod, Spl. Government Pleader.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the legality of compulsory bonded service for nursing students, affirming that conditions accepted upon admission are binding and align with public policy.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Fundamental Rights - Government Order dated 11.07.2024 - Compulsory Bonded Service for M.Sc. Nursing Course students challenged as arbitrary and illegal - Petitioners argued no bond executed, thus not bound by the provision - Court ruled that petitioners were aware of potential compulsory service upon admission, thus lawful. (Paras 13, 16, 21)

(B) Compulsory Bond - Legality of imposition considered - Previous judgments upheld the State's authority to enforce bonded service for educational benefits - Court found no violation of individual rights, as conditions were accepted knowingly. (Paras 18, 22)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners, M.Sc. Nursing Degree students, challenged the legality of Ext.P1 Government Order imposing compulsory bonded service, arguing lack of prior notice and execution of bond. They sought higher stipends in comparison to their previous earnings. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:

The State's decision to implement compulsory bonded service was based on maintaining educational standards and teacher-student ratios, deemed not arbitrary or illegal. (Paras 21, 22)

Issues: Whether the compulsory bonded service is legally sustainable and if the petitioners are bound by it despite not executing a bond. (Paras 13, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that petitioners, having accepted the terms of admission, are bound by the conditions set forth, and the compulsory service is justified in the context of public policy and educational requirements. (Paras 21, 22)

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Nagaresh, J.)

The petitioners are M.Sc. Nursing Degree Course students under the academic batches 2022-2024 and 20232025. They are currently pursuing their Post Graduate Degree Course. They have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 Notification issued by respondents 1 and 2 and to direct the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioners’ request to make the compulsory bonded service optional. The petitioners also seek to direct the 1st respondent to systematically raise the stipend for the compulsory service in a decent manner in comparison to the salaries paid to the Assistant Professors with the same qualification as of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners state that M.Sc. Nursing Course is a Two Year Degree Course having examinations on yearly basis for two academic years. The 7th respondent-University has the authority to lay syllabus in the matter of academics, training period and award of Certificates. The 9th respondent-Indian Nursing Council oversees the standards of education, registration and working environment of nurses in the country.

3. Government of Kerala published Ext.P1 Government Order dated 11.07.2024. In Ext.P1, it has been stated that Compulsory Service will be optional to the students admitted for M.Sc. Nursing Course in Government Colleges of Nursing. If Government desires to implement Compulsory Service, every student is bound to do the same. The petitioners are challenging the above provision.

4. The petitioners state that few of the students from the Government Nursing Colleges of Kannur and Kottayam addressing their difficulties relating to this Bonded Service submitted Ext.P5 representation to the 3rd respondent. The petitioners state that they were made to sign a bond attached as Annexure-II along with respective Prospectus of the years 2023 and 2024. The bond executed was relating to the completion of the course without violating Rules and Regulations and was not related to any complusory bonded service. The petitioners put up the issue to their official association also, as can be seen from Ext.P8.

5. The petitioners, who graduated four year B.Sc. Nursing Degree Course and had been working in different hospitals, were drawing salary at the range from Rs.30,000/-to Rs.50,000/-. They are mostly middle aged women and men, married, with kids and living separated from their family, staying in College Hostels. The M.Sc. Nursing Degree academics require sleepless hours, four hours of classes and eight hours of hospital service, six days per week, without vacation or leave.

6. The petitioners joined the course with an intention to accelerate their career prospectives and to improve their family standard of living by joining high paying jobs in India or in Hospitals abroad. Ext.P1 imposing Bonded Service is highly arbitrary and illegal, contended the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Ext.P1 Government Order was issued on 11.07.2024. The petitioners had joined the Course earlier to that. Therefore, Ext.P1 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners.

7. The enforcement of the Bonded System is without any prior notice and without even providing any information before hand to the petitioners. Though the Prospectus gave power to the Government to implement bonded service system, the Prospectus did not provide as to the length of the bonded service or as to the honorarium or the allowances to be paid during the bonded service. In fact, the petitioners have not executed any bond. As long as the petitioners have not executed bond, they cannot be forced merely on the basis of a condition in the Prospectus. Ext.P1 is therefore highly arbitrary and is liable to be quashed, contended the petitioners.

8. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent submitted that it was clearly stipulated in the Prospectus that if the Government desires to implement Compulsory Service, every student is bound to do the same. The Government has decided to make applicable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top