State of Tamil Nadu vs P. S. Sairam - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2226

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
P.S. Sairam and Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 799 of 2019, W.P. Nos. 23827, 19810, 19811, 19812, 19814, 19816, 19817, 20812, 20813, 21515, 21225, 21226, 21227, 21228, 21231, 21232, 21233, 21234, 21373, 21239, 21247, 21368, 21218, 21219, 21740, 21742, 21743, 19809, 19813, 21213, 21215, 21216, 21217, 21741, 21214, 21371, 21224, 10895, 20800, 20808, 20810, 10894, 21230, 21220, 21221, 21222, 21223, 21236, 20811, 21237, 21229, 11485, 21370, 21372, 21235, 21369, 21238, 20817, 21212 of 2017, 27514 of 2013, W.M.P. Nos. 22144, 22124, 21655, 21658, 21659, 21660, 22749, 22118, 22120, 22121, 22122, 22137, 21647, 21654, 22130, 22131, 22132, 22133, 22134, 22135, 22136, 22330, 22745, 22746, 21385, 21386, 21387, 21388, 22143, 21383, 21384, 21381, 21382, 21389, 21672, 21673, 22113, 22114, 22123, 22125, 22126, 22127, 22128, 22326, 22327, 22328, 22329, 22331, 22332, 22333, 22335, 22336, 22129, 22138, 22142, 21380, 21661, 21662, 21663, 21664, 22747, 22748, 21393, 22116, 22117, 22139, 22140, 22141, 22501, 22744, 22112, 22151, 22152, 22502, 22334, 22750, 11838, 11839, 11840, 11841, 12464, 12465, 21379, 22751, 25059, 25060, 21390, 21394, 21395, 21396, 21665 of 2017, C.M.P. Nos. 9689, 9600, 9603 and 9606 of 2020
Decided On : 06-10-2020

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

Headnote:
Education Matter - Post Graduate Medical Courses - Issue of retention of certificates - All India Quota seats - whether the respondents (viz., the State and its authorities) are justified in getting bonds from the candidates selected under All India Quota - Learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader. We have also heard Dr. Indumathy, Deputy Director, Directorate of Medical Education - Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is an error, which is apparent on the face of the judgment and requests that Court may review judgment and give an opportunity to appellants to place all facts before this Court to justify their stand that the respondents/writ petitioners are bound by terms of bond executed by them and they are required to serve Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of two years, failing which they have to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000 - Held, It is clear that there was no regular vacancy available with the Government, but in order to accommodate the non-service Post Graduates, a temporary appointment on contract basis was offered for a period of three months - Respondents are not entitled to enforce the bond or the Government order or the circular of the second respondent against the PG Degree/Diploma Holders, who are admitted under the All India Quota - Therefore no option but to set aside the impugned judgment, but with a direction that in event period of two years has passed by after passing out of candidates without any offer of employment - Petitioner in W.P. is stated to have not filled up any bond - He is therefore entitled to return of certificates - Petitioners in W.P. session students - Their status be examined and if students of their batch have been handed over their certificates, then in view of long passage of time, their certificates shall also be returned in these peculiar circumstances - Writ petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

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 without considering many relevant aspects of the matter and consequently, a Review Application No. 111 of 2019 was filed that was allowed on 13.6.2019. The order passed in the Review Application is extracted herein under:

"This review application has been filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director of Medical Education, seeking to review the judgment in W.A. No. 799 of 2019 dated 23.04.2019. By the said judgment and order, the appeal filed by the review petitioner/State was dismissed.

2. Heard Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader. We have also heard Dr. Indumathy, Deputy Director, Directorate of Medical Education.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is an error, which is apparent on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2226

Cases Referred (5)