Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Dwarkadhish Bansal, JJ.
Rahul Mittal (Dr.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 13445 of 2018 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 18.4.2022
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- suppression of material fact by petitioner -- non-disclosure of filing of earlier writ petition -- previous petition was filed assailing bond conditions -- present petition filed contending that since relevant rule has not been complied with by respondents, petitioner be released from bond conditions -- present cause of action to seek enforcement of relevant rule did not arise when he filed previous petition -- no clash in relief clauses of both petitions -- not mentioning filing of earlier petition does not amount to suppression of material fact. (2004) 7 SCC 166 followed. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 376 of 2018 decided on 19.8.2019 referred to. [Paras 16 & 22
(2) Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Admission Rules (Degree/Diploma), 2014 (M. P.) -- R. 11 -- period of 3 months provided after declaration of result to appoint successful candidates failing which, bond conditions will become ineffective automatically -- petitioner not given appointment pursuant to being successful -- respondents flouted/breached R. 11 -- bond condition cannot be enforced against petitioner in view of automatic/deeming clause. [Paras 17, 19 & 25
(3) Deeming Clause -- statutory rule couched in language which includes deeming clause -- should be given full effect -- conditions of deeming clause satisfied -- comes into effect automatically -- no express order required to be issued. AIR 1953 SC 244, (1986) 1 SCC 465, (1994) 1 SCC 318, AIR 1996 SC 1963, (2007) 8 SCC 609, AIR 1959 SC 352, AIR 1965 SC 502, AIR 1971 SC 1474, AIR 1974 SC 665, AIR 1975 SC 164, AIR 1977 SC 1201, (2004) 3 SCC 1, AIR 2004 SC 3666, (2004) 8 SCC 95, (1996) 1 SCC 722, (2003) 5 SCC 521 and (2012) 6 SCC 613 followed. (1951) 2 All ER 587 referred to. [Para 19
(4) Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Admission Rules (Degree/Diploma), 2014 (M. P.) -- R. 11 -- words “such Doctors” -- relate to successful candidates who have passed relevant course and their list is furnished by concerned Medical College to Commissioner, Health Services. [Para 26
(5) Interpretation of Statute -- language of rule plain and unambiguous -- it has to be given effect to, irrespective of consequences. 1992 (4) SCC 711 followed. [Para 26
(6) Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Admission Rules (Degree/Diploma), 2014 (M. P.) -- R. 11 -- service in rural areas -- question of rendering rural services would arise provided petitioner was given appointment by Government -- Government has not given any such appointment -- question becomes academic in nature -- need not be answered. [Para 27
(7) Affidavit -- petitioner furnished undertaking in affidavit -- respondents may file proceedings to enforce affidavit of petitioner in accordance with law, if law so permits. [Paras 8 & 28
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && ;kph }kjk rkfRod rF; fNik;k tkuk && iwoZrj fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dh tkus dk vizdhVdj.k && iwoZrj ;kfpdk ca/ki= dh 'krks± ij vk{ksi djrs gq, izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh && orZeku ;kfpdk ;g ladFku djrs gq, izLrqr fd izR;FkhZx.k }kjk lqlaxr fu;e dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k blfy, ;kph dks ca/ki= dh 'krks± ls mUeqDr fd;k tk, && lqlaxr fu;e ds izorZu dh bZilk ds fy, orZeku okn gsrq rc mn~Hkwr ugha gqvk Fkk tc mlus iwoZrj ;kfpdk izLrqr dh Fkh && nksuksa ;kfpdkvksa ds vuqrks"k [kaMksa esa dksbZ Vdjko ugha && iwoZrj ;kfpdk Qkby fd, tkus dk mYys[k ugha djuk rkfRod rF; fNikus dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 166 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Ø-376 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 19-8-2019 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 22
¼2½ fpfdRlk rFkk nar fpfdRlk LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe izos'k fu;e ¼fMxzh@fMIyksek½] 2014 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-11 && lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qDr djus ds fy, ifj.kke dh ?kks"k.kk ds i'pkr~ 3 ekl dh vof/k micaf/kr] fu;qfDr ugha djus ij ca/ki= dh 'krs± Lor% fu"izHkkoh gks tk,axh && ;kph dks lQy gksus ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k && izR;FkhZx.k us fu-11 dh voKk dh@Hkax fd;k && Lor%@/kkj.k [kaM dh n`f"V ls ;kph ds fo#) ca/ki= dh 'krZ izofrZr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 17] 19 ,oa 25
¼3½ /kkj.kk [kaM && dkuwuh fu;e ,slh Hkk"kk esa of.kZr ftlesa /kkj.kk [kaM lfEefyr && iw.kZr% izHkkoh fd;k tkuk pkfg, && /kkj.kk [kaM dh 'krs± iwjh && Lor% izHkkoh gks tkrk gS && vfHkO;Dr vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkuk vko';d ughaA , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 244] ¼1986½1 ,l lh lh 465] ¼1994½1 ,l lh lh 318] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 1963] ¼2007½8 ,l lh lh 609] , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 352] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 502] , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1474] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 665] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 164] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1201] ¼2004½3 ,l lh lh 1] , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 3666] ¼2004½8 ,l lh lh 95] ¼1996½1 ,l lh lh 722] ¼2003½5 ,l lh lh 521 rFkk ¼2012½6 ,l lh lh 613 vuqlfjrA ¼1951½2 vkWy bZ vkj 587 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19
¼4½ fpfdRlk rFkk nar fpfdRlk LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe izos'k fu;e ¼fMxzh@fMIyksek½] 2014 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-11 && 'kCn ß,sls fpfdRldÞ && mu lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSa ftUgksaus lqlaxr ikB~;Øe mÙkh.kZ dj fy;k gS rFkk mudh lwph lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; }kjk vk;qDr] LokLF; lsokvksa dks nh tkrh gSA ¼iSjk 26
¼5½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && fu;e dh Hkk"kk Li"V vkSj vlafnX/k && mls ifj.kkeksa ls fujis{k izHkkoh fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA 1992¼4½ ,l lh lh 711 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 26
¼6½ fpfdRlk rFkk nar fpfdRlk LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe izos'k fu;e ¼fMxzh@fMIyksek½] 2014 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-11 && xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa lsok && xzkeh.k lsok nsus dk iz'u rc gh mn~Hkwr gksrk ;fn ;kph dks ljdkj }kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k gksrk && ljdkj us ,slh dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha dh && iz'u vdknfed izÑfr dk jg tkrk gS && mÙkj nsuk vko';d ughaA ¼iSjk 27
¼7½ 'kiFk i= && ;kph us 'kiFki= esa ifjopu fn;k && izR;FkhZx.k ;kph dk 'kiFki= izofrZr djkus ds fy, fof/k ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh Qkby dj ldrs gSa] ;fn fof/k esa vuqKkr gksA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 28
ORDER (Oral)
Paul, J. -- 1. The controversy revolves around the interpretation of Rule 11 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Post Graduate Course Admission Rules (Degree/Diploma) 2014 (hereinafter called as “Admission Rules”).
2. Before dealing with the relevant rule namely rule 11, it is apposite to mention the admitted facts between the parties. Petitioner took admission in Post Graduate Diploma Course in Gajra Raja Government Medical College, Gwalior on 1.7.2014. The petitioner participated in the final examination in December, 2014. Petitioner could not clear the main examination held in 2016. He took part in the supplementary examination and result was declared on 3.3.2017 (Annexure P/4).
3. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per rule 11 of the Admission Rules, The Dean, Medical College was required to provide a list of successful post graduate candidates to the Commissioner of Health Services, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner, in turn was required to issue appointment orders to such successful candidates within three months after declaration of the result. It is urged that the results were declared on 3.3.2017 but till date, no appointment order has been issued to the petitioner. Resultantly, in view of the clear language of rule 11 aforesaid, the bond conditions stand obliterated automatically. Thus, petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed.
4. Shri Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to paragraph No.2 of the petition argued that no doubt, petitioner clearly declared that W.P. No.3628/2017 and W.P. No.3629/2017 are the petitions which involve absolutely identical issue but the final order passed in the said case will show that on facts, present case is distinguishable inasmuch as the said cases were not entertained by this Court because as per the factual backdrop of aforesaid writ petitions, the admission was given by the Commissioner to the petitioner therein within three months from the date of getting the list of successful postgraduate candidates, whereas in the present case, indisputably, the petitioner has not been appointed till date. It is canvassed that one of the main objection of the respondents is based on common order dated 11.7.2018 passed in W.P. No.3628/2017.
5. Thus, the first objection mentioned in the return of the State is devoid of merits submits Shri Sanghi.
6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.11900/2016 challenging the bond conditions in which an interim order dated 19.7.2016 (Annexure/R1) was passed by this Court. The order nowhere prevents the State to issue appointment order to the petitioner, a successfully P. G. Diploma candidate. For no valid reasons, they deprived the petitioner from appointment and on the other hand did not relax the bond conditions. It is argued that if the petitioner has not disclosed about factum of filing of W.P. No.11900/2016, it does not amount to suppression of fact and the petitioner has approached this Court with a pair of clean hands. In this view of the matter, case of the petitioner is that for nonfulfilling the statutory requirement of Rule 11 of Admission Rules, the bond conditions lost its force and cannot be enforced against the petitioner.
7. Mrs. Pandit, learned Deputy Advocate General sounding a contra note, urged that a careful reading of Rule 11 aforesaid makes it clear that it is in two parts. The first part makes it obligatory for all the Deans of Autonomous Colleges to provide the list to the Commissioner of the students who were appearing in the examination whereas second part deals with such Doctors who have successfully passed the examination in question. The expression ‘however, such Doctors will have to work under the State Government as directed’ is important, submits learned Deputy Advocate General and it is argued that as per this condition, petitioner is still required to serve the department in rural areas.
8. Learned counsel for
SupremeToday
The court emphasized the importance of upholding the conditions stipulated in the bond and held that the respondents cannot act in breach of the condition imposed and enforce conditions of the bond b....
The court upheld the validity of state-mandated compulsory service bonds for medical postgraduates, affirming they serve public interest and do not violate constitutional rights.
The absence of regulations regarding the demand for a service bond from government doctors and the need for regulations to address this issue in the context of PG medical admissions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
