Students executing bonds for mandatory service following admission to medical courses are legally bound by such agreements, which align with government policies on medical education.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2020 Shaji P. Chaly, J The captioned appeals are filed by the writ petitioners aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions by a learned single Judge of this Court as per a common judgment dated 03.11.2020.

2. The basic reliefs sought for in the writ petitions were common and are follows:

(i) Issue a declaration that bonds similar to Exhibit-P2 are unenforceable, as obtained on compulsion, and the petitioners are not liable to compensate the respondents for making available the required facilities for PG Course and hence, Exhibit-P3, P3(a), P3(b), P3(c) and P3(d) are unsustainable in law.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3, to issue the Course and Conduct certificate, Course Recognition certificate, Transfer certificate and such certificates enabled by the petitioners and other documents submitted at the time of admission, without insisting for one year's service at the institution.”

3. Since the subject issues raised in the appeals are similar in nature, we have heard them together on agreement and proposed to pass this common judgment.

4. Material facts for the disposal of writ appeals are as follows:

During May, 2017, appellants were allotted seats for post graduate medical courses in Government quota and the course duration was for three years. It is an admitted fact that the appellants secured admission under the State merit quota as per the seat sharing agreement, entered into with the Government and Management. Appellants have successfully completed the course during 2020.

5. The case projected by the appellants before the learned single Judge was that at the time of allotment and admission, the Medical College and the Principal – respondents 2 and 3, insisted that the appellants shall execute a bond, undertaking to serve the institution for a period of one year as Senior Resident/Tutor/Demonstrator, at the rate fixed by the Government in Government Medical Colleges, after successful completion of the postgraduate course. The bonds were secured on the strength of the provisions in G.O.(Rt.) No.1366/2017/H&FWD dated

15.05.2017 (Exhibit-P1).

6. It is the case of the appellants that they could not challenge the insistence for execution of such bonds at that time, but were compelled to execute bonds similar to Exhibit-P2 as directed by the College. It is also an admitted fact that all the appellants except the 1st appellant in W.A. No.1666 of 2020 executed the bond as insisted. The bonds stipulate that the executants will serve the institution as compensation for making available facilities required for the post graduate studies by the Government and the Management.

7. It is submitted that respondents 2 and 3 did not issue the course and conduct certificates, course recognition certificate, transfer certificate and such other certificates provided by the appellants at the time of admission, apparently for the reason that as per the prospectus issued by the State Government, which applies to all the institutions, the College is bound to release the certificates only after the appellants undergoing the bonded service as agreed upon. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the appellants is that they cannot be compelled to continue in the institution on the basis of the bond obtained at the time of admission. They further contended that the stipend eligible to them is not paid after December, 2019. It is also predominantly submitted that it is the option of the appellants to decide as to whether to continue in the 2nd respondent institution or not, when even the stipend are in arrears.

8. That apart, it is stated that clause (9) of the Government order dated 15.05.2017 does not provide for withholding the certificates of the students in case of not serving the institution for one additional year. It is an admitted fact that the appellants were issued with letters directing them to serve the bond period, basically relying upon a Division