Additional State conditions pertaining to bond/rural service are not applicable to All India Quota candidates.

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. Delay of 75 days, in preferring Special Appeal No. 224 of 2019, is not opposed by Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner; and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

2. All these appeals are preferred against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the State Government lacked jurisdiction to recover the bond amount from students who were admitted to under-graduate courses, in Medical Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand, under the All-India quota of 15%.

3. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-State and Mr. Vinay Kumar & Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners, agree that it would suffice, for the disposal of this batch of Special Appeals, if the contents of the order, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1058 of 2016 and batch dated 13.11.2018, are noted.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the respondents-writ petitioners questioning the Government Orders dated 23.07.2008, 04.08.2008, 09.09.2009 and 23.05.2013 on the ground that, since they were selected for admission in the MBBS course against the 15% All India quota, they could not have been asked to furnish a surety bond, in terms of the impugned Government Orders, while taking admission in the MBBS Course in Government Medical Colleges of the State of Uttarakhand. While some of the respondents-writ petitioners, in this batch of Special Appeals, were admitted into the under-graduate medical course in Government Medical College, Haldwani during the year 2011-12, some others joined the MBBS course in the Government Medical College, Haldwani during the year 2013-14. In terms of the Government Order dated 09.09.2009 a concessional fee of Rs.15,000/- per annum was to be charged from students who were willing to furnish a bond to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for five years after completion of their undergraduate medical course, and, in case they chose not to do so, they were then required to pay the regular fee of Rs. 2,20,000/- per annum as tuition fees. Similarly in terms of the Government Order dated 23.05.2013 a concessional fee of Rs. 40,000/- per annum was payable in case the students, who sought admission in under-graduate medical courses in Government Medical Colleges in the State, agreed to execute a bond to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for five years. They were, however, entitled to seek admission, without executing a bond, on payment of the regular fee of Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum.

5. All the respondents-writ petitioners furnished a bond to serve the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for a period of five years after completion of their under-graduate medical courses, and were permitted to prosecute their under-graduate medical course on payment of the concessional fee of Rs. 15,000/- per annum / Rs. 40,000/- per annum for the academic year 2011-12 and 2013-14 respectively. After joining the under-graduate course, and having prosecuted their studies for a couple of years, some of the respondents-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, and some others invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only after completing their MBBS course, relying on certain judgments passed by this Court, including the order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1845 of 2009 dated 09.04.2015.

6. In the order under appeal the learned Single Judge, while relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anand S. Biji v. State of Kerala, 2001 10 JT 121 SC; Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India, 1999 2 SCC 575 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 186 of 2016 dated 23.02.2016, also took note of Clause 5(ii) of the Information Bulletin (Counseling) AIPMT 2011 issued by the Government of India, and held that though the conditi