SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3508

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SAVI VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMS 868 / 2024



Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPMS/ 1122/ 2024 With WPMS/ 868/ 2024 WPMS/ 869/ 2024 WPMS/ 874/ 2024 WPMS/ 1123/ 2024 WPMS/ 1124/ 2024 WPMS/ 1126/ 2024 WPMS/ 1176/ 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 1122 of 2024 (MS) alone are being discussed and considered.

3. Petitioners took admission in MBBS Course in different Medical Colleges, within the State of Uttarakhand, during Academic Sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and they pursued MBBS course on subsidised fee by executing a Bond that they would serve for minimum five years in remote hill areas of State of Uttarakhand.

4. The grievance raised by petitioners is that the students who took admission in MBBS course before Academic Session 2017-18, were required to execute bond only for three years, while the condition of five years service was introduced from Academic Session 2017-18. This, according to petitioners is unjust for the students like petitioners, who took admission during Academic Session 2017-18 and thereafter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Government Order, issued on 26.06.2019 for contending that henceforth there would be no vacancies available in Uttarakhand Provincial Medical Health Service.

6. The reliefs sought in Writ Petition No.

1122 of 2024 (MS) are as follow:

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reduce the term of service bond from 5 years to 3 years like it was for the students up to 2016 batch.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take only the difference of tuition fee from the petitioners, who wish to get themselves free from the bond.

c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant NOC, MBBS degree and all certificates relating to the MBBS course to the petitioners respectively.

d. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over to the petitioners all their original marksheets and certificates taken at the time of admission in MBBS course and withheld by the respondents.”

7. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners have accepted the condition imposed at the time of giving admission to them and executed the bonds with eyes wide open, then they cannot resile from their undertaking. However, learned State Counsel fairly submits that if petitioners have any grievance, they can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top