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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Muhamed Mustaque, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ.
Divya.K.S D/o Soman K. Nair - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Hon’ble Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Kerala, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - Respondent
WA NO. 158 OF 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nisha George, George Poonthottam (SR.), Silpa Sreekumar
For the Respondent: binny thomas, Vivek Menon, Abraham P.Meachinkara Paily Meachinkara, P.Sreekumar (SR.)(K/410/1994), Sunilkumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader

The court ruled that the imposition of a compulsory service bond on M.Sc Nursing students post-enrollment was arbitrary and violated the principle of legal certainty.

Headnote:(A) Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 - Section 14 - Compulsory service bond for M.Sc Nursing students - Government Order mandating a one-year teaching internship as a bonded lecturer challenged - Court found the bond system to be arbitrary and lacking legal certainty, violating the principle of the rule of law. (Paras 1, 9, 11)

(B) Legal Certainty - The court emphasized that legal relationships must be governed by clear and predictable rules, and arbitrary exercise of power is impermissible. (Paras 7, 9)

(C) Fairness in Administrative Action - The court reiterated that fairness and reasonableness are essential in administrative actions, and the absence of clear guidelines renders the bond requirement unjust. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Students enrolled in M.Sc Nursing challenged a Government Order requiring a bond for compulsory service post-graduation, arguing it violated Indian Nursing Council guidelines.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the bond requirement was arbitrary and unjust, ordering the release of retained certificates to students who did not execute the bond.

Issues: The legality of the bond system and the Government's authority to impose such a requirement post-enrollment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government's failure to clarify the bond requirement at the time of enrollment rendered the demand for execution arbitrary and contrary to legal certainty.

Result: Appeal allowed, judgment set aside.

JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This writ appeal was filed by some students who enrolled in the M.Sc Nursing Degree Course at various Government Nursing Colleges in the State during the academic year 2022-23 and 2023-24. They challenged a Government Order dated 11.07.2024 in the writ petition, which mandated a compulsory one-year teaching internship upon the execution of a bond. By the said order, the Government decided to engage students who enrolled from the academic year 2022–23 onwards and successfully completed the M.Sc. Nursing course as bonded lecturers, with a stipend of Rs.25,000/-. According to them, this is a violation of the Indian Nursing Council directives.

2. It is appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the guidelines issued by the Indian Nursing Council regarding bond system for the M.Sc. Nursing programme, which state as follows:

    “Bond System

    Taking service bonds from students and forcefully retaining their Original Certificates is viewed as an unethical practice by the Indian Nursing Council. If any such practice comes to the notice of the Indian Nursing Council, appropriate action under Section 14 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 will be taken against the erring institution.”

3. The learned Single Judge was not persuaded by the argument of the writ petitioners and, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents and Ors. v. Union of India and Others [(2019) 8 SCC 607] and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Aiysha Beegum(Dr.) and others v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (2) KLT 471], repelled the challenge. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged in this appeal by some of the writ petitioners.

4. We note that the instructions of the Nursing Council regarding the bond system were explained by the Nursing Council in the counter affidavit filed by them before this Court. It is stated by them that these guidelines were issued to stop the practice of some nursing institutions forcefully engaging students to work as nurses in the hospital by retaining their original certificates. We also note that various High Courts have considered the legality of the bonded service; and the Apex Court in the Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents case (supra) declared that such compulsory bonds in Government institutions are not in violation of any law in force.

5. However, we note that the Government in this matter neither insisted on the execution of the bond at the time of enrolment nor asked the students to execute such bonds within a reasonable time.

6. M.Sc Nursing is a two-year programme. There are two groups of students before us: those enrolled in the academic year 2022–23 and those enrolled in the academic year 2023–24. In regard to the students of 2022-23 batch, they completed their course in the month of November, 2024.

7. The prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Degree 2022 was issued only on 21/7/2022. It is stipulated in the prospectus regarding compulsory service as follows:

    “(f) Compulsory Service - Compulsory Service will be optional to the students admitted for M.Sc Nursing course in Govt. College of Nursing. If the Government desires to implement Compulsory Service, every student is bound to do the same.”

A similar prospectus was also issued for the academic year 2023-24 on 30/5/2023. The stipulation about compulsory service is the same. The Government was not sure if compulsory service should be insisted on students at the time of the issuance of the prospectus. The Government kept the option alive to insist on students to execute bonds for compulsory service. Is it possible for the Government to leave any room for uncertainty regarding the students’ future? We do not doubt the legality of insisting on compulsory bond. Every legal relationship, in whatever sphere, is constituted by legal certainty. Legal certainty is the aspect of the rule of law. That means one shoul

      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