HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Nishant Gopaal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12611/2022 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11531/2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12617/2022 , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12656/2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13307/2022 & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15021/2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022
The Court held that the State Government's policy of requiring medical graduates to serve in the State for a minimum period of two years in exchange for subsidized education was valid. However, the Court also held that the State Government could not retain the original documents of the graduates as a condition of service. The Court directed the State Government to return the original documents to the graduates within three weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were medical graduates who had completed their Post Graduate Medical Degree from different medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan. They had executed a service bond/undertaking in favor of the State Government to serve in the State for a minimum period of five years, if Government desired. The State Government reduced the period of compulsory service from 5 years to 2 years and issued an order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022, asking all such candidates to apply online for the post of Assistant Professor/Senior Demonstrator/Senior Resident/Medical Officer/Junior Specialist/Junior Resident, on urgent temporary basis/tenure basis. The petitioners challenged the order and notification, contending that the same were illegal and arbitrary and that they were not bound to serve the State Government as per the undertaking given by them.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government's policy of requiring medical graduates to serve in the State for a minimum period of two years in exchange for subsidized education was valid. The Court found that the State Government had a legitimate expectation from the petitioners to serve the State Government, as the State Government had incurred hefty expenses in imparting education to the petitioners in the Government Medical Colleges at a very low fees. The Court also found that the State Government was well within its rights to insist for rendering services or to pay the requisite amount mentioned in the bond.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government's policy of requiring medical graduates to serve in the State for a minimum period of two years in exchange for subsidized education was valid? 2. Whether the State Government could retain the original documents of the graduates as a condition of service?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Government's policy of requiring medical graduates to serve in the State for a minimum period of two years in exchange for subsidized education was valid. The Court found that the State Government had a legitimate expectation from the petitioners to serve the State Government, as the State Government had incurred hefty expenses in imparting education to the petitioners in the Government Medical Colleges at a very low fees. The Court also found that the State Government was well within its rights to insist for rendering services or to pay the requisite amount mentioned in the bond. The Court also held that the State Government could not retain the original documents of the graduates as a condition of service. The Court found that the retention of original documents by the State Government was illegal and arbitrary. The Court directed the State Government to return the original documents to the graduates within three weeks.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petitions and directed the State Government to return the original documents to the graduates within three weeks.
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE
1. These writ petitions since involve common issues, as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are decided by this common order.
2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions after their admission in the year 2019-20 have completed their Post Graduate Medical Degree from different medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan, they felt aggrieved against the order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022.
3. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12611/2022 are taken as a lead case and this Court deems it proper to quote the prayer made in the said writ petition, as follows:-
(i) The impugned order dated 12.07.2022 and impugned notification dated 04.08.2022, may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) By issuing appropriate writ or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed:-
(a) To release documents of the petitioners,
(b) Not to invoke the condition No.2 making security deposit of Rs.25 Lakhs, In the alternative;
(c) To provide all vacancies of Senior Residents in Govt. and RAJMES Colleges for allocation afresh for PG candidates in pursuance to Policy dated 12.07.2022;
(d) To appoint Post Graduates against such posts for which the qualification is Post Graduation Degree/Diploma;
(e) To adhere to the mandate of Applicable Laws;
4. The petitioners have pleaded that they were granted admission in Post Graduate Medical Course in different subjects under the All India and State Level quota in the Session 2019- 2020 at different Medical Colleges. The petitioners passed out their Post Graduate Degree Course in May, June & July, 2022.
5. The petitioners have pleaded that at the time of giving admission to them, they were required to execute a service bond/undertaking in favour of the State Government to the effect that after completion of course, they would be bound to serve the Government for a minimum period of five years, if Government desired and on such failure, they were liable to deposit a penalty of Rs.25 Lakhs.
6. The petitioners have pleaded that initially S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022 was filed before this Court, wherein the petitioners were selected for Senior Residentship in the institutes of National importance like AIIMS/PGI/JIPMER and their documents were not released by the State Government and this Court vide interim order dated 04.08.2022, directed the State Government to release the documents subject to undertaking/bond to be furnished by the petitioners to join the employment, if offered by the State Government. The State Authorities were directed to release the documents of the petitioners on furnishing such undertaking.
7. The petitioners have pleaded that like the petitioner- Dr.Krishnapriya S. Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022, some of the other similarly situated candidates applied for the Senior Residentship programme, however, they were not considered and as such, details of such 9 candidates have been furnished, who appeared for the Senior Residentship but were not selected.
8. The petitioners have pleaded that after interim order was passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022, the State Government on 04.08.2022 issued notification, asking all such candidates, who were admitted in the Academic Year 2019 in the course of DM/M.Ch/MD/MS and passed out in the Academic Session 2022, to apply online for the post of Assistant Professor/Senior Demonstrator/ Senior Resident/Medical Officer/Junior Specialist/Junior Resident, on urgent temporary basis/tenure basis.
9. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that the order dated 12.07.2022, was made applicable upon those candidates who were pursuing their Post Graduate Course or Super Speciality Course i.e. from Academic Session 2022-23, however, the respondents also made the said order applicable from the Session 2019-20 by applying it retrospectivel
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr.
M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Board vs. B.S.S. Parihar & Ors.
Monil Prakash Chand Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat
R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others vs. Ajit Mills Limited and Another
R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma
Ram Pravesh Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others
Reliance Telecom Limited and Another vs. Union of India and Another
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Satya Jain (Dead) Through LRs. and Others vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) through LRs. and Others
State of M.P. and Others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani And Others
Suresh Chand Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Union of India vs. M/s. D.N. Revri and Co. and Others
Compulsory bond service for medical graduates is legally justified as a condition for subsidized education, and allocations to Primary Health Centres align with public health needs.
Retention of original documents as a admission precondition is lawful under service bond agreements, and courts must observe judicial discipline in similar cases.
The court upheld the validity of state-mandated compulsory service bonds for medical postgraduates, affirming they serve public interest and do not violate constitutional rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.