The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, specifically Section 73 and Section 74, in cases of breach of contracts and compensation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated.

1. The two questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions are (1) whether the petitioner, an Associate Professor in General Surgery working in the third respondent College is entitled to wriggle out of an agreement reached between him and the management on 2.9.2006? and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to leave his service as a matter of right without fulfilling his obligations?

2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. In the first writ petition, the petitioner was seeking to quash the order, dated 7.12.2009, wherein and by which he was informed that his letter of resignation, dated 30.11.2009 sent along with the amount in lieu of three months notice was rejected and returned. He was further informed that since he had undergone Post Graduate Degree in M.Ch (Gastroenterology) as a service candidate and had executed an agreement to serve the institution for a period of six years, failing which he was bound himself to pay six months salary together with three months notice pay. The petitioner was directed to report for duty on account of rejection of his resignation letter. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition in M.P.No.2 of 2010 seeking amendment of prayer challenging not only the order refusing to accept his resignation letter, but also Clauses 1 and 5 of the agreement, dated 2.9.2006 executed by him. The same was ordered by this court on 23.4.2010.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the second writ petition with an identical prayer. That writ petition came up for admission on 22.3.2010 and the matter was directed to be posted along with the other writ petition. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were posted together.

4. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 24.3.2010, for which the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 14.4.2010. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had passed MBBS Degree course in the year 1986. He was appointed as a Medical Officer in the third respondent Medical College and Hospital on 10.1.1991. His services were regularised on 13.1.1992. The petitioner wanted to pursue his higher studies in MS (General Surgery) and applied for leave on loss of pay. He was relieved from service on 28.7.1994. After completion of his course, he rejoined the institution on 1.12.1997. The petitioners post was redesignated as an Assistant Professor with effect from 1.10.1998 based on the PG qualification acquired by him. Subsequently, he was promoted as an Associate Professor on 5.2.2005. At the time of his promotion, the petitioner had executed an indemnity bond to serve the institution for a minimum period of two years from the date of promotion as an Associate Professor.

5. The petitioner applied for PG course (Super Speciality) course in M.Ch Gastroentrology by an application, dated 18.5.2006. His application was forwarded by the institution to the selection committee to treat him as a service candidate on 26.5.2006. At the time of forwarding his application for the course, he was informed that during the study period, he will not be paid any salary or stipend as well as course fee and the period will be treated as leave on loss of pay. Even when the application was forwarded, there is no guarantee that his leave on loss of pay will be sanctioned and it will be done on the basis of administrative exigency prevailing at that time. He was also informed that for doing PG Super Speciality course, he should execute an undertaking cum indemnity bond that he will serve in the third respondent college for a minimum of twice the period of study leave after completion of course (i.e. for six years). In case, he discontinues the course before completion or leave the college after completion but before the bond period, he had to pay penalty as per the bond condition. He was also informed that the selection committed has declared the third respondent as an unaided non-minority institution. The p