The court established that withholding original documents post-completion of a course is illegal unless explicitly permitted by the terms of a service bond.

ORDER :

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved is limited to the purportedly unauthorized and illegal withholding of the petitioners’ original documents by the respondents, even pursuant to the completion of the petitioners’ respective courses.

2. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1347/2024 titled as Dr. Amit Soni vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the question of law to be determined by this Court.

3. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i. the impugned action of the Respondents in not releasing the documents of humble Petitioner, may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary.

ii. the Respondents may kindly be directed to release documents of the Petitioner on giving an undertaking to the effect that in case he is not joining the appointment offered by the State Government in pursuance to the counselling, he shall deposit the amount payable under the bond to the State Government.

iii. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

4. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be determined by this Court, is concisely noted herein-under:

4.1 That the petitioner appeared in the NEET-Super Specialty 2020 Examination and was declared successful therein.

4.2 That subsequently, the petitioner was admitted to GMC, Kota in MCH Urology.

4.3 That during admission, the petitioner was directed to submit his original documents to the said college, as a compulsory pre-condition for securing his admission in the said college.

4.4 That accordingly, the petitioner submitted his original documents with GMC, Kota.

4.5 That at the time of taking admission, the petitioner was asked to execute a service bond/undertaking in favour of the State Government to the effect that the petitioner would be bound to serve the State Government after the completion of his course and in an eventuality where he fails to do so, the petitioner would be liable to deposit a penalty amount as per the bond conditions.

4.6 That the petitioner completed his course in the month of December’2023.

4.7 That despite the completion of the said course, the respondents have withheld the petitioner’s original documents and are not releasing the same.

5. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has already completed his course, the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing the original documents of the petitioner is illegal, unjust and arbitrary, thereby being liable to be quashed. While advancing a prayer for the release of the original documents, learned counsel argued that the original documents of the petitioner cannot be retained by the respondents as security for the payment of amount, as enumerated within the service bond undertaking so executed by the petitioner at the time of securing admission in the concerned college. It was averred that the said service bond does not include within its body any condition which enables the respondents to retain the petitioner’s original documents.

6. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the issue of release of documents is no more res integra as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12611/2022 titled as Dr. Nishant Gopal and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. vide order dated 10.11.2022 categorically held that the withholding/retention of original documents was bad-in-law and consequently, the respondents were directed to release the said documents within a period of three w