Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, CJ., VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
State of Uttarakhand & Others - Appellants
Versus
Cheni Khan & Others –Respondents
Special Appeal No. 37 Of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2024
For the Appellants : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
A bond obligation related to a lower fee structure is enforceable only for the course in which the benefit was received, and subsequent bonds for different courses cannot be cumulatively enforced.
Headnote:
DELAY CONDONATION - BOND OBLIGATION - The court ruled that the respondent, having taken advantage of a lower fee structure for the MBBS course, is only bound by the three-year bond associated with the MD course, as the two bonds cannot be cumulatively enforced. The court emphasized that the second bond was valid and enforceable, while the first bond's obligation was not applicable post-MD course.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent completed an MBBS course under a lower fee structure and signed a five-year bond to serve in rural areas. Afterward, the respondent pursued an MD course independently and signed a three-year bond for rural service. The dispute arose over whether both bonds were enforceable or just the three-year bond.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the respondent only benefited from the lower fee structure during the MBBS course, the five-year bond was not enforceable after completing the MD course. The court upheld the validity of the three-year bond signed during the MD course.
Issues: Whether the respondent is bound by both the five-year bond from the MBBS course and the three-year bond from the MD course, or just the latter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the two bonds were distinct and that the second bond for three years was enforceable, as the respondent did not take the benefit of the lower fee structure during the MD course.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the respondent is only required to fulfill the three-year bond obligation from the MD course.
JUDGMENT:
(Ritu Bahri, CJ.) :
For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the delay condonation application (IA No.01 of 2023), delay condonation application is allowed, and the delay of 125 days is condoned.
2. In the present special appeal, the only short question for consideration is, whether the respondent, who has done MBBS course after taking the benefit of lower fee structure, was bound to give the bond of five years after completing the MBBS Course, and after doing the MBBS course, he did the MD course on his own level without taking the benefit of lower fee structure, and he gave a bond of three years.
3. The only question for consideration is whether both the bonds, one is of five years and another is three years, are to be implemented, or whether one bond for three years after MD course, is to be implemented.
4. Since the respondents- writ petitioners have taken the benefit of lower fee structure only in one course, i.e. MBBS course, both the bonds are not be implemented post completing the MD course, so the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition, and the petitioner is bound by the bond given at the time of MD course for period of three years, and for calculating this period of three years, the period spent after MBBS course has to be adjusted.
5. The appellant-department was aware about the fact that the respondents-writ petitioners have given one bond to do five years’ work in rural areas after completing MBBS course. However, when the respondents-writ petitioners got admission in MD course, the department consciously took a bond to serve for three years in rural areas. Hence, the second bond given at the time of MD course is to be now implemented. The respondents-writ petitioners are bound by the second bond given at the time of MD course for three years, and they are not required to serve for five years, as they were doing MD course without taking the benefit of lower fee structure.
6. It is not the case of the appellants that the second bond of three years was taken by mistake. Hence, the respondents- writ petitioners were bound by the second bond of three years, and the first bond of five years could neither be added in the second bond of three years, nor could be made part of doing five years work after doing MD course.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
