High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Dr. S. Rajesh
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary & Others
W.P.Nos.12923, 12924, 12925, 12926, 12927, 12928, 12716, 12717, 12718, 12719, 12720, 12721, 12722, 12723, 12724, 12725, 13078, 13449, 13450, 13451, 13452, 13554, 13555, 13556, 13831, 13832, 13833, 14194, 14195, 14353, 14354, 14832, 15761, 16207, 16208, 17386, 17387, 18501, 18502, 19869, 22471, 22513, 22514 of 2008 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided on: 12-12-2008
Bonds - Medical Education - G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 16. 2007 - Clause 68(d) - 2005-2006 session - PG Degree/Diploma Holders - All India Quota - Non-Service Quota - Original Certificates - Super Speciality Courses
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, PG Degree/Diploma holders in medicine, challenged the enforcement of bonds and retention of original certificates by the respondents. The petitioners were admitted under All India Quota and Non-Service Quota and were compelled to serve in Government Institutions for a minimum period of three years as per the bond conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that All India Quota candidates were not bound by the bond conditions. However, candidates admitted under the Non-Service Quota were bound by the bond conditions and required to serve in Government Institutions for three years. The court also declared the retention of original certificates and denial of permission to apply for super speciality courses as invalid.
Issues: 1) Enforcement of bonds against All India Quota students, 2) Challenge to prospectus after joining the course, 3) Validity of retention of original certificates, 4) Denial of permission to apply for super speciality courses
Ratio Decidendi: The prospectus is binding on candidates, and those admitted under the Non-Service Quota are bound by the bond conditions. The court emphasized the binding nature of the prospectus and upheld the enforcement of bond conditions for Non-Service Quota candidates. However, the court declared the retention of original certificates and denial of permission to apply for super speciality courses as invalid.
Final Decision: All India Quota candidates were not bound by the bond conditions. Non-Service Quota candidates were bound by the bond conditions and required to serve in Government Institutions for three years. The court declared the retention of original certificates and denial of permission to apply for super speciality courses as invalid.
Common Order:
1. The common prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 16. 2007 and to annul Clause 68(d) of the P.G. Degree/Diploma for MDS for five year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) course in the Tamil Nadu Government Medical/Dental non-governmental self-financing and Government aided college prospectus 2005 as well as the proceedings of the second respondent dated 4. 2008 and forbear the respondent from in any manner enforcing the bond as against the P.G. Diploma/Degree candidates for the period 2005-2008.
2. The issue involved in all these writ petitions being one and the same, all the writ petitions are dealt with by this common order.
3. The petitioners herein are Post Graduate Degree/Diploma holders in medicine in allied branches. The petitioners are admitted in their respective PG Degree/Diploma course 2005-2006 and the Diploma holders completed their two years Diploma course and the Degree holders also completed their three years course as of now. All the petitioners are admitted in the PG Degree/Diploma courses in Non-Service Quota (50%)/All India Quota seats provided for admission to PG Degree/Diploma courses.
4. The case of the petitioners who were admitted under the All India Quota is that they have not applied for admission to PG Degree/Diploma course before the respondents as per the prospectus issued by the respondents for admission 2005-2006 and they appeared for All India Entrance Test in respect of All India seats and based on the marks secured by them in the Entrance Examination and as per their choice of the course/Colleges, they were selected and admitted in the medical colleges in Tamil Nadu. Thus, the contention of the said candidates is that the prospectus issued by the respondents, particularly Clause 68(d) and the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 16. 2007 as well as the circular issued by the second respondent dated 4. 2008 are not applicable to the candidates admitted on the basis of selection made under the All India quota.
5. The case of the other petitioners, who are admitted under the Non-Service Quota is that they were forced to execute a bond while joining in their respective PG Degree/Diploma course to serve in the Government Institution for a period of three years, if the government give them posting, failing which the PG Diploma Holders shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and the PG Degree Holders shall pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for not serving in the Government, for the above period.
6. The petitioners are also challenging the order of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 16. 2007 stating that their Post Graduate Degree/Diploma certificates will be returned to the Doctors only on satisfactory completion of Government services for two years and the Clause in the Government Order granting relaxation of Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, so as to enable the PG Degree/Diploma Holders to serve for a minimum period of three years and they can be made permanent, if they appear and pass in the TNPSC selection. The circular of the second respondent dated 4. 2008 is also challenged calling upon the PG Degree/Diploma Holders to attend counselling for appointment for the period of three years.
7. The contentions raised in these writ petitions are that the bond executed by the petitioners will not bind them as they were forced to execute the same at the time of joining, without any option. The PG Degree/Diploma Holders are not assured of posting on completion of their course in consonance with their qualification and therefore they are compelled to work in primary Health Centres, where there is no provision to treat the patients as per their specialisation. The stipend given to the petitioners by the Government is like allowances paid to apprentices while they get training and therefore the paym
1. I.L. Honnegouda vs. State of Karnataka and others AIR 1978 SC 28
6. Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1995 SC 1088 = (1995) 3 SCC 486
7. Union of India and another v. N.Chandrasekharan and others AIR 1998 SC 795
8. R.Murali v. R.Kamalakkannan (FB) AIR 2000 MADRAS 174
11. Indian Airlines Ltd. vs.K.Narayanan (2007) 5 MLJ 648
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.