SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 356

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Dr. K.Gautham - Appellant
Versus
The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 6145 of 2020
Decided On : 01-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Jerin Mathew, Advocate. For the Respondents: Aayiram K. Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader.

The court balanced the rights of the petitioner to pursue higher studies with the respondents' interest in ensuring compliance with the bond conditions, by ordering the return of the original certificates subject to an undertaking and a safeguard in the form of a deposited bond amount.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Return of Original Certificates - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Indian Contract Act, 1872] - The court ordered the return of the original certificates to the petitioner for pursuing higher studies, subject to an undertaking to join duty after completing the course and resubmit the documents. The petitioner had deposited a bond amount as a safeguard, and the court allowed for the refund of the amount with accrued interest upon re-submission of the certificates or encashment by the respondents in case of non-compliance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a medical practitioner, sought the return of his original certificates from the respondents to join a higher course of study after completing his bond period of compulsory service.

Finding of the Court:

The court ordered the return of the original certificates to the petitioner for pursuing higher studies, subject to an undertaking to join duty after completing the course and resubmit the documents. The petitioner had deposited a bond amount as a safeguard, and the court allowed for the refund of the amount with accrued interest upon re-submission of the certificates or encashment by the respondents in case of non-compliance.

Issues: Return of original certificates for pursuing higher studies, bond conditions, and safeguarding the bond amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the petitioner's need for the original certificates to pursue higher studies with the respondents' interest in ensuring compliance with the bond conditions, by ordering the return of the certificates subject to an undertaking and a safeguard in the form of a deposited bond amount.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the Writ Petition, ordering the return of the original certificates to the petitioner for pursuing higher studies, subject to an undertaking to join duty after completing the course and resubmit the documents. The petitioner had deposited a bond amount as a safeguard, and the court allowed for the refund of the amount with accrued interest upon re-submission of the certificates or encashment by the respondents in case of non-compliance.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Second Respondent to return all the Petitioner's original certificates and testimonials as mentioned in his representation dated 01.05.2020 within the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court so as to enable him to join DNB PDCET course in the last week of May 2020.)

Heard Mr. M.Jerin Mathew, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials available on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. This Court during the earlier hearing on 18.05.2020 passed the following self-explanatory order:-

“The Petitioner, who had completed M.B.B.S. degree in March 2013 was selected for Diploma in Ophthalmology in Madurai Medical College in All India quota in May 2017. In terms of the conditions for selection, the Petitioner executed a bond to compulsorily serve the State for two years after completing the course and also submitted the following documents:

(i) M.B.B.S. Degree Certificate

(ii) M.B.B.S. Medical Registration Certificate

(iii) CRRI Certificate

(iv) M.B.B.S. Course cum Conduct Certificate

(v) M.B.B.S. First to Final Year Mark

(vi) H.Sc. Mark Sheet

(vii) DO Mark Sheet

(viii) DO Provisional Certificate

(ix) DO Degree Certificate

(x) DO Course cum Conduct Certificate

The Petitioner passed the final examination held in May 2019 and an order dated 18.10.2019 was issued to him posting him as Assistant Surgeon, but he did not join duty as per the agreed terms.

2. While the matter stood narrated supra, the Petitioner had applied for further studies in DNB (Post Diploma) conducted by National Board of Examinations, New Delhi in January 2020 session and had secured 492 out of 800 marks. The Petitioner made a representation dated 01.05.2020 to the Second Respondent stating that he had qualified with All India Merit position in Ophthalmology and wanted to advance his skills to better serve the nation, and requested to release all his original certificates and has undertaken to serve the required two years of compulsory service after completing higher studies. As the Petitioner had not received any response to the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed for directing the Second Respondent to return all his original certificates and testimonials so as to enable him to join DNB (Post Diploma) course.

2. At the outset, it must be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents vs. Union of India [(2019) 8 SCC 607] has held that the requirement by the various States in the Country that the candidates admitted to Post Graduate Speciality Courses in Medicine that they would have to execute compulsory bond to serve the Government for a specified period after the completion of the course or pay the amount fixed as compensation in lieu thereof, is legally valid and does not offend Articles 16, 19(1)(g), 21 and 23 of the Constitution, Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, apart from falling within the competence of the State Governments. In that ruling, it has also been noticed that the State Governments have not attempted to enforce the contract of personal service in view of the bar under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, meaning thereby that if the executant of the bond failed to comply with the agreed condition to serve the Government for the specified period, he would be liable to pay the amount fixed in the bond as compensation for such breach of that contract.

3. It is the fervent plea of the Petitioner in this case that he is willing to serve the Government for the agreed period in the bond, but after completing his higher studies for which he has been now selected, and has sought for return of his original documents, which are now in the custody of the Respondents, in the aforesaid representation m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top