State of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai vs P. S. Sairam

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. Sahi, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Another – Appellant
Versus
P.S. Sairam & Others – Respondents
W.A. Nos. 799 of 2019 & 23827, 19810-12, 19814, 19816-17, 20812-13, 21515, 21225-28, 21231-34, 21373, 21239, 21247, 21368, 21218-19, 21740, 21742-43, 19809, 19813, 21213, 21215-17, 21741, 21214, 21371, 21224, 10895, 20800, 20808, 20810, 10894, 21230, 21220-23, 21235-38, 20811, 21229, 11485, 21370, 21372, 21369, 20817 & 21212 of 2017 & 27514 of 2013 & W.M.P. Nos. 22144, 22124, 21655 of 2017, etc & C.M.P. Nos. 9689, 9600, 9603, 9606 of 2020
Decided On : 06-10-2020

Advocate Appeared:
Narmadha Sampath, Addl. Advocate General assisted by T.M. Pappiah, Spl. Government Pleader, R. Sankaranarayanan, Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by V. Chandrasekaran, SPC, S. Thangasivan, G. Justin, J. Ferozkhan, M/s. C.S.K. Sathish, A. Sundaravadhanan, R. Arumugam, Suresh Sakthi Murugan, A. Priyadharshini, D. Ravichander, V.P. Raman, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Medical Education - Indemnity Bonds for Post Graduate Medical Courses - The governing principles regarding indemnity bonds and retention of original certificates post completion of medical courses were clarified, ruling that candidates under All India Quota are not bound unless conditions were stipulated at the time of admission. The court emphasized the requirement for state synergy in appointing candidates post-graduation and addressed concerns on laws of public interest regarding subsidized education. (Paras 94-106)

Facts of the case:
The case revolves around medical students selected for postgraduate courses under All India Quota contesting the imposition of a bond compelling service to the State of Tamil Nadu, following communications suggesting that these conditions did not apply to them.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered that if the State fails to offer jobs to these candidates within two years of course completion, they are entitled to have their certificates returned.

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether service bonds and job retention conditions could be lawfully imposed on candidates selected under All India Quota.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the conditions in the bond are valid, their enforcement must be equitable and promptly met by the State’s obligation to provide employment.

Result: Appeals allowed; the decision of the earlier court is modified with stipulations.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Indemnity bonds and retention of original certificates for postgraduate medical courses are valid, even for candidates admitted under the All India Quota, provided the conditions were stipulated at the time of admission (!) (!) (!) . - Candidates admitted under the All India Quota are bound by the terms of the bonds they voluntarily executed, as these bonds are considered part of a composite package for subsidized education (!) (!) (!) . - The State Government has the competence and authority to issue notifications imposing conditions for the execution of bonds to protect its interests and ensure the welfare of the public by providing medical services (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court's judgment in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others v. Union of India and others is binding and has settled the legal issues regarding the validity of such bonds and conditions (!) (!) (!) . - If the State Government fails to offer employment to candidates within two years of their course completion, the bonds become infructuous, and the candidates are entitled to the return of their certificates (!) (!) (!) . - The State Government has a corresponding obligation to fulfill its commitment of offering employment within the stipulated period, and failure to do so cannot be excused by the matter being sub judice (!) (!) (!) . - Communications or clarifications that contradict the terms of the prospectus or the binding judgment of the Apex Court, such as the Director of Medical Education's letter dated 17.7.2017, do not absolve candidates from their bond obligations (!) (!) (!) . - The argument that retention of certificates is arbitrary and irrational is no longer valid in light of the Apex Court's pronouncements (!) . - The University Grants Commission's regulations prohibiting the retention of original certificates are not applicable in this context, as the lien on certificates arises from a voluntary contract and is for a limited purpose to ensure service to the State (!) . - The State Government must prepare a list of all candidates within fifteen days, detailing their passing out date, employment offer status, and the expiry of the two-year period, to avoid confusion (!) .

What is the validity of indemnity bonds and retention of original certificates for candidates admitted to postgraduate medical courses under the All India Quota?

What are the rights of candidates if the State fails to offer them employment within the stipulated period after course completion?

How does the Supreme Court's judgment in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others v. Union of India and others impact the enforcement of indemnity bonds and certificate retention for postgraduate medical courses?

Table of Content
1. dual question of indemnity bonds and certificate retention. (Para 1 , 2)
2. state's arguments related to compliance and relevant orders. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court observations on prior decisions and government actions. (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. court's rulings on bond conditions and service obligations. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)
5. final judgment on bonds and implications for candidates. (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103)
6. conclusion regarding certificate returns and candidates' rights. (Para 104 , 105 , 106 , 107)

JUDGMENT :

A.P. Sahi, J.

(Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LETTERS PATENT against the order dated 01.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.23874 of 2018.)

1. The writ appeal and the connected writ petitions relate to the same subject matter, namely the dual question of the execution of indemnity bonds to serve the State of Tamil Nadu after having completed the Post Graduate Medical Courses, and the consequential issue of retention of certificates, the release whereof has been sought by the petitioners contending that, firstly, there was no such condition in respect of the All India Quota seats with which they are concerned, and then, even otherwise, the said conditions were not applicable in the absence of any relevant government order and enforceable rule.

2. The litigation has charted certain decisions and orders, which deserve an immediate mention at this stage itself. A batch of 208 petitioners joined in W.P.No.23874 of 2018 praying for a mandamus that the communication of the Director of Medical Education dated 17.7.2017 be enforced in respect of all the petitioners, who are students selected under All India Quota and instruct the return of original certificates without insisting on implementing the undertaking in respect of the bondage of service on completion of Courses. This writ petition was disposed of taking into account the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.2248 of 2013 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14593 of 2014, dated 20.6.2014. Accordingly, a direction was issued to return the certificates as per the communication dated 17.7.2017. The said judgment is under appeal in W.A.No.799 of 2019.

3. What happened on the filing of the appeal also deserves to be noted viz., the fact that the appeal was dismissed on 23.4.2019 by a Division Bench, holding that in view of the communication of the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department as well as the communication of the Director dated 17.7.2017, no undertaking or bond or condition was required to be complied with by the students, who have been selected under the All India Quota.

4. There is one relevant paragraph pertaining to the present controversy, which deserves notice in paragraph (8) of the order dated 23.4.2019 that records that the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge without a counter-affidavit. Paragraph (8) is extracted herein under :

“8. However, we find that the said writ petition was not allowed on the very same day when the case was listed for admission. Nevertheless, the said writ petition was allowed without a counter affidavit. In our considered view, no counter affidavit would be required considering the fact that the second appellant herein – second respondent, in the said writ petition, neither disputed issuance of the said communication dated 17.7.2017 nor took a contrary stand in the said writ petition. Now, the appellants are attempting to set up a case that despite the said communication of the second appellant dated 17.7.2017, the original certificates of the writ petitioners, who were admitted under the All India Quota cannot be returned.”

5. The State Government urged that the matter had been disposed of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1858

What is the validity of indemnity bonds and retention of original certificates for candidates admitted to postgraduate medical courses under the All India Quota?

What are the rights of candidates if the State fails to offer them employment within the stipulated period after course completion?

How does the Supreme Court's judgment in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others v. Union of India and others impact the enforcement of indemnity bonds and certificate retention for postgraduate medical courses?

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis