Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Dr. C. Dharshan & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Health Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 30144, 30145, 30149 to 30151, 30153, 30156, 30158, 30160, 30162, 30163 & 30166 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Return documents - Pay of compensation - Contended by Petitioners that execution of bond ought to have taken place at time of joining course in August but as Respondents did not demand for execution of such bond then it would tantamount to deemed waiver of those conditions and in absence of executing such bond Respondents cannot compel Petitioners to comply with those bond conditions - It is further claimed that Respondents have no right to retain certificates of Petitioners and insist to pay compensation amount in bond which has not been executed - It is grouse of Petitioners that their livelihood has been affected as certificates which are essential for them have not been returned to carry on their medical profession – Held, Here again as employer State is entitled by prevailing practice to retain certificates of Petitioners to ensure that they possess prescribed qualification and do not abandon employment without requisite sanction - Likewise certificate for course of study could be issued only on its successful completion which includes obligation to serve for agreed period - As such Respondents are absolutely justified in retaining original documents of Petitioners till they perform their obligation of serving for requisite period failing which Petitioners have to pay liquidated damages stipulated for return of same and no fault can be found with such legitimate action - Cannot be gainsaid that Article Constitution is an equitable jurisdiction which cannot be exercised in favor of defaulting party to frustrate legitimate claim of other party - In Panchugopal Barua Mesh Chandra Go swami Honble Supreme Court of India has commented as follows court of equity it should be remembered must so act as to prevent perpetration of legal fraud - It is expected to do justice by promotion of honesty and good faith as far as it lies within its power - Party seeking relief in equity must come to court with clean hands – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
(Prayers in W.P. (MD) Nos.30144, 30145, 30149 to 30151, 30153, 30156, 30158, 30160, 30162, and 30163 of 2019:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the following documents 1 to 6 along with DM Provision Degree Certificate and DM Mark Sheet without insisting the petitioners to pay any amount or to comply with the alleged bond condition.
Prayer in W.P. No. 30166 of 2019:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the following documents 1 to 6 along with M.Ch. Provision Degree Certificate and M.Ch. Mark Sheet without insisting the petitioners to pay any amount or to comply with the alleged bond condition.)
Common Order:
Heard Mr. G.T.Subramanian, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are medical practitioners, who had applied in July 2016 for Higher Speciality Courses i.e., Doctor of Medicine and Master of Surgery conducted by the Directorate of Medical Examination, Government of Tamil Nadu for which they were selected in August 2016 and had completed the same in July 2019. The specific particulars of the respective Petitioners are furnished below:-
| Sl. No. | W.P. No. | Name of the Petitioner | Subject |
| 1. | W.P. No. 30144 of 2019 | Dr. C. Dharshan | D.M. Medical Gastroenterology |
| 2. | W.P. No. 30145 of 2019 | Dr. Tejaswini Dande | D.M. Medical Gastroenterology |
| 3. | W.P. No. 30147 of 2019 | Dr. Chandrashekar | D.M. Medical Gastroenterology |
| 4. | W.P. No. 30150 of 2019 | Dr. Luvkush Prasad Tiwari | D.M. Medical Gastroenterology |
| 5. | W.P. No. 30151 of 2019 | Dr. Anuja R | D.M. Rhematology |
| 6. | W.P. No. 30153 of 2019 | Dr. Avinash S. Alashetty | D.M. Neurology |
| 7. | W.P. No. 30156 of 2019 | Dr. Biju K. Alexander | D.M. Neurology |
| 8. | W.P. No. 30158 of 2019 | Dr. N. Sandeep | M.Ch. Plastic Surgery |
| 9. | W.P. No. 30160 of 2019 | Dr. K. Sathyasagar | D.M. Nephrology |
| 10. | W.P. No. 30162 of 2019 | Dr. Tushar V.P. | D.M. Neurology |
| 11. | W.P. No. 30163 of 2019 | Dr. Sreedevi S. | D.M. Rhematology |
| 12. | W.P. No. 30166 of 2019 | Dr. Arounkumar | M.Ch. Plastic Surgery |
At the time of their admission for the course of study, the Petitioners had submitted the documents relating to their eligibility, such as Standard X Mark Sheet, M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate, Registration Certificates for M.B.B.S. and M.D., M.D. Mark Sheet and Degree Certificate and C.R.R.I. Completion Certificate etc.,
3. According to the Petitioners, after they have completed the speciality course, they have requested the Third Respondent to return their aforesaid certificates and had made separate representations dated 25.09.2019 to return the same along with their Higher Speciality Course Certificate, but they were declined to be received and the Petitioners have been orally informed that either they have to serve ten years with the Respondents as per the bond conditions or pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- in lieu thereof. It is contended by the Petitioners that the execution of the bond ought to have taken place at the time of joining the course in August 2016, but as the Respondents did not demand for execution of such bond then, it would tantamount to deemed waiver of those conditions, and in the absence of executing such bond, the Respondents cannot compel the Petitioners to comply with those bond conditions. It is further claimed that the Respondents have no right to retain the certificates of the Petitioners and insist to pay the compensation amount in the bond, which has not been executed. It is the grou
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
