ORDER :

1. Mr. Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been set at rest by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 304/2021 decided on 16.04.2021 rendered in the case of Manisha Devi Meena vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others which has been followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 03.01.2023 rendered in the case of Manendra Singh vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12880/2020.

2. In the case of Manisha Devi Meena (supra), this Court has observed thus:

“Before Division Bench of this court in Dr. Priya Verma (supra), question arose that condition to the effect that successful candidate after first counseling will have to submit bank guarantee to the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 at the time of joining at the allotted college so that he/she cannot forego or leave the course. It was also stipulated that if he/she does, the bank guarantee shall be forfeited. The said condition in the prospectus was in pursuance to the decision taken in the meeting at government level. The Division Bench after considering various aspects held as under:

14. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition. But, in the instant case seats have gone waste. The State has incurred huge expenditure in imparting education for one year. The patients in attached Hospitals to medical colleges have been derived from getting services of efficient Doctors as the seats cannot be allotted now. Injury has been caused to the cause of education such seats are national wealth and cause of service in the field of health services. Thus, the ratio of aforesaid decision in facts of the case is not attracted. It is not penalty which is mentioned in the bond. In our opinion, it is reasonable amount stipulated to be paid in wake of breach of condition of bond. It cannot be said to be a term in terrorum.

15. Exception to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that recognisance or other instrument of the same nature or under the provisions of any law, or under the orders of the Central Government or of any State Government, gives any bond for the performance of any public duty or act in which the public are interested, he shall be liable upon breach of the condition of any such instrument to pay the whole sum mentioned therein. In view of exception in our view, there is no substance in the submission of the appellants that only actual damages caused can be recovered. Exception to Section 74 is clearly attracted the nature of duties to be performed to the patients is an act in which public are interested. Thus, the bond clearly falls within the exception to Section 74 of the Act of 1872. Exception to Section 74 is to the following effect:

Exception: When any person enters into any bail bond, recognisance or other instrument of the same nature or under the provisions of any law, or under the orders of the Central Govt. or of any State Govt., gives any bond for the performance of any public duty or act in which the public are interested, he shall be liable upon breach of the condition of any such instrument to pay the whole summentioned therein.

16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also submitted that such a stipulation is outcome of superior bargaining power of the State Government thus, is not enforceable. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another vs. Tarun Kanti Sengupta and Another, MANU/SC/0439/1986 : (1986) 3 SCC 156. In Brojo Nath Ganguly's case, provision for consideration was under the one under which permanent employee could have been removed by notice of three months such a condition had been held to be outcome of superior bargaining of the employer which is not the case here. The c