ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. This matter is taken up for final hearing through Video-Conferencing with the consent of all the counsel.

2. The core question that arises in all these Writ Petitions is the validity of the Bonds that were extracted from the petitioners or their guardians at the time of admission into MBBS course in the third respondent college run by the second respondent viz., The Employees State Insurance Corporation. Since all the petitioners are similarly placed and their grievances are common, these Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by a common order.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were all allotted Government seats in the third respondent College during the Academic Year 2013 - 2014, for the 4½ years under Graduate course in Medicine and one year compulsory intern ship program. The general prospectus issued by the State Government at the time of counselling did not include the third respondent College which was established by the second respondent under Section 59B of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, introduced in 2010.

4. The petitioners, who appeared for counselling were allotted seats in the third respondent College on the basis of merit and only when they were to join the College, they were informed that they will have to execute a bond undertaking to serve for 5 years in any one of the Hospitals run by the second respondent in India or in default to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest at 15% per annum. They were also informed that in the event of their refusal to execute such a bond, the allotments made to them would be cancelled. According to the petitioners, left without any option, they had executed the bonds and had joined the institution. They have also completed the course successfully. As per the bond conditions, the second respondent had given them appointment orders directing them to serve in various Hospitals run by the second respondent Corporation throughout the country.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that they did not willfully opt for the third respondent College and they were allotted Government seats in the third respondent College through the general counselling and therefore, they cannot be treated differently from the other students, who had been offered Government seats in various Government Colleges as well as Private Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners would challenge the orders of appointment and also seek a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second and third respondents from enforcing the bond that was obtained by them, according to the petitioners, under duress and coercion.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that no other Medical College or University in India, except those in certain Hilly areas of Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand, take a bond for service for Under Graduate Courses in Medicine. The petitioners would also aver that most of them have qualified for admission in Post Graduate Courses in medicine by appearing for the Post Graduate NEET examinations conducted for the year 2020. In the circumstances, if they are compelled to work for the second respondent they would lose the opportunity of pursuing Higher Education.

7. The claim of the petitioners is resisted by the second and third respondents mainly contending that the third respondent is not an Aided Medical College and being a self-financing Institution, it is entitled to have its own conditions for admission to its Under Graduate Medical Program. It is the further contention that having accepted the conditions at the time of joining and having executed the bonds, the petitioners cannot now seek to resile from their obligation under the bonds executed by them or their guardians, as the case may be. The respondents 2 and 3 would also rely upon the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP (C) No. 376 of 2018 etc. batch, dated 19.08.2019, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, in WP No. 21173