w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sunil Chillalshetti & Others v/s State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Medical Education Department, Chhattisgarh & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- A R MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232AS2003PTC007179

Company & Directors' Information:- H H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301WB1997PTC083294

Company & Directors' Information:- C J MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33110TG2010PTC068126

Company & Directors' Information:- S P S MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51397BR2007PTC013129

Company & Directors' Information:- P. MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85195TG1987PTC008112

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80300DL2007PTC171109

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32109WB1984PTC037810

Company & Directors' Information:- P L MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U33130DL2011PTC225068

Company & Directors' Information:- C S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211DL2004PTC125711

Company & Directors' Information:- S D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80903MH2004PTC147463

Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

Company & Directors' Information:- A S C EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80904TG2015PTC099629

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INDIA EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904UP2016PTC084320

Company & Directors' Information:- O S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035501

Company & Directors' Information:- G D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2003PTC122716

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904DL2012PTC245724

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2010PTC040713

Company & Directors' Information:- P H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80211DL2008PTC177735

Company & Directors' Information:- O E S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2006PTC154572

    Writ Petition (C) No. 1613 of 2020

    Decided On, 14 August 2020

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

    For the Petitioners: Prafull N Bharat, Advocate. For the Respondents: Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.



Judgment Text


P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J.,

1. Whether the Petitioners, who got admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course in the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh under 'All India Quota' after executing a 'Bond' in the year 2017 to serve the State for a period of two years on successful completion of the course, or else to pay the 'Bond amount'/damages, can now turn around and contend that it is beyond the power and competence of the State Government to have insisted and obtained the Bond from the Petitioners when they were given the admission?

2. Validity of Rule 11(1) of the Annexure P/1 Rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Snatakottar Pravesh Niyam, 2017 (for short 'the 2017 Rules') is put to challenge by the Petitioners, mainly contending that it stands against the mandate of Article 19(1)(g) and 23 of the Constitution of India, being an instance of 'forced labour'; that it is in violation of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act prohibiting enforcement of contract of 'personal service' and that it is also in violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which stipulates that every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession or trade or business of any kind, is void to that extent. There is also a further contention that, though the admission was for the year 2017-2018 onwards, Annexure P/1 Rules were brought into existence only from '03.04.2017'; but by that time, pursuant to the common entrance test conducted, the result was declared and hence the Petitioners are governed by the previous set of Rules i.e. Annexure P/6 Rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Snatakottar Pravesh Niyam, 2016 (for short 'the 2016 Rules') where there is no provision for any compulsory service by executing a Bond.

3. We heard Shri Prafull N. Bharat, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Vikram Sharma, the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State/Respondents, at length.

4. Since no factual dispute is involved, but for the point involving a question of law, both the sides were heard on merit as agreed, based on the materials available on record and the binding precedents.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners points out that in connection with the admission for the Post Graduate courses for the year 2017-2018 onwards, Annexure P/4 prospectus was issued by the National Board of Examinations, New Delhi, providing information as to the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Post Graduate) for the various MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses, 2017. The last date for submitting the application was stipulated as 31.10.2016 and accordingly, the common entrance test was conducted on 05.12.2016. After declaring the result in January, 2017, the first round of counselling was done on 14.03.2017, as disclosed from Annexure P/5. Incidentally, it is to be noted from the particulars given by the Petitioners in paragraph 8.2 of the writ petition, that only the Petitioners at serial No. 3 and 5 namely (Bhagwati Chandra Verma and Neelshyam Thakur) got admission in the 'first round' (who had completed their MBBS from the 3rd Respondent Institution situated in the State of Chhattisgarh); whereas, the other Petitioners got admission only in the second round of counselling (who had completed their MBBS from the various medical colleges situated outside the State of Chhattisgarh). It was in the meanwhile, that Annexure P/1 Rules of 2017 were brought into force w.e.f 03.04.2017 replacing the previous/Annexure P/6 Admission Rules, 2016, insisting execution of a 'Bond' to serve the State after successful completion of the course for a period of 'two years', or else to pay the damages/compensation in terms of Rule 11(1) of the 2017 Rules. According to the Petitioners, in Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016 (which was in force when the examination was conducted, the result was declared and the first round of counselling was held), no such clause was there. It is in the said circumstances, that the Petitioners contend that they are governed by Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016 and not by Annexure P/1 Rules of 2017 (by virtue of which the 'Bond' got executed from them at the time of granting admission in the year 2017) is not enforceable in law and hence under challenge.

6. Rule 11(1) of Annexure P/1 Rules, the constitutional validity of which is put to challenge, reads as follows:

“LANGUAGE”

7. As pointed out already, the validity of the said Rule is challenged mainly on the grounds:

* That neither Annexure P/4 Prospectus issued by the National Board of Examinations, nor any stipulations/rules/regulations issued by the Medical Council of India prescribes 'essentiality of service' in respect of the candidates under the 'All India Quota'.

* That the Petitioners were not aware of any essentiality of service or as to the 'Bond' prior to opting for the 3 rd Respondent Institution in the State of Chhattisgarh and that they came to know of it only on getting allotment.

* That, the Petitioners, having obtained allotment under the 'All India Quota' form a separate class and hence their admission cannot be subjected to any additional condition to be stipulated by the State - who does not have any jurisdiction or competence in this regard.

* That, the Petitioners would be governed by Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016 having succeeded in the common entrance test conducted prior to commencement of Annexure P/1 Rules of 2017 and hence, the 'rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement of the game'.

* That, there is infringement of the right of the Petitioners to carry on the profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and that there is infringement of Article 23 as well as Rule 11(1) of Annexure P/1 Rules amounts to 'forced labour' which stands prohibited under the Constitution.

* That, the essentiality of service insisted under Rule 11(1) of Annexure P/1 Rules is in violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act, which stipulates that every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession or trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.

* That, Rule 11(1) of Annexure P/1 Rules formulated and notified by the State Government stands contrary to the various judicial pronouncements rendered by the Apex Court and also by this Court.

8. Shri Vikram Sharma, the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State/Respondents submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the writ petition. It is pointed out that the Petitioners who secured admission in the 3rd Respondent institution, based on the relevant Rules, in the year 2017, had executed the 'Bond' then and there, without raising any protest. It is after completion of the course and extracting the benefit of subsidized education provided by the State for moulding the Post Graduate/Specialty Doctors in different disciplines with intent to serve the general public who are availing the treatment from the Governmental institutions for having no means of their own to look out for other facilities cannot be permitted to wriggle out of their liability arising under the 'Bond'. Admittedly, the Petitioners have approached this Court only several years after arising the cause of action and hence, the writ petition is bad for delay and laches, and hence not maintainable. It is asserted by the learned counsel that the rules framed and notified by the Government are within the four walls of law and it does not infringe any provisions in the Constitution or the relevant statutes cited by the Petitioners; nor does it stand contrary to any binding judicial precedents.

9. The learned counsel for the State further points out that there is absolutely no merit in the submission raised by the Petitioners that they were not aware of Annexure P/1 Rules when they gave their option citing the 3 rd Respondent-Institution in the State of Chhattisgarh for admission and that they came to know it only on getting allotment. As per the rules and regulations governing the admission, each State has to upload all the information with regard to the courses and the colleges in the website giving the details including the facilities/infrastructure available and also whether any 'essentiality of service' in the State is insisted. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that such particulars were uploaded by the State in the website of the Medical Council of India way-back on 23.01.2017 itself; whereby it was clearly stipulated that 'Service Bond' was being proposed for all candidates who secure admission in the educational institutions in the State. No information was given to anybody that such service was to be rendered only by the students getting admission in the State Quota or that it will not be applicable to the candidates coming under the All India Quota. There was no objection from anybody at any point of time, till the filing of the writ petition after successful completion of the course. As such, the cause of action, if at all any, which arose in the year 2017 has become stale and is not liable to be acted upon at this distance of time, more so when the service of the persons like the Petitioners is the need of the hour, particularly during the time of Covid-19 pandemic.

10. The learned counsel for the State submits that all the contentions as raised by the Petitioners in the present writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 11(1) of Annexure P/1 Rules and the execution of the Bond insisting for minimum service under the various State Governments are similar to the contentions raised before the Apex Court in Association of Medical Superspecialty Aspirants and Residents and Others v. Union of India & Others; reported in (2019) 8 SCC 607. All such contentions have been repelled and the appeals have been dismissed, which is stated as squarely applicable to the case in hand.

11. Shri Prafull N Bharat, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the verdict passed by the Apex Court cited supra is not applicable to the case of the Petitioners; mainly for the reason that they are governed by Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016. The learned counsel asserts that Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016 do not contain any clause providing for execution of Bond in respect of persons like the Petitioners who come under the 'All India Quota'.

12. Obviously, the Petitioners do not challenge Annexure P/1 Rules as a whole, but for the limited challenge raised against Rule 11(1) of the 2017 Rules. It would be worthwhile to note the prayers raised in the petition, to understand the nature of relief sought for, as given below:

"10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that clause 11.1 of the 'Admission Rules of 2017' is bad in law and ultra vires to the provisions contained under Article 19 and 23 of the Constitution of India and Section 27 of the Contract Act and Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act and is also in contravention of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash clause 11.1 of the 'Admission Rules of 2017' and grant all other consequential benefits.

10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to return back all the original testimonials including the marksheets submitted by the petitioners at the time of admission as well as the PG Degree. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."

13. The case of the Petitioners is that the last date for applying for the post graduate course was stipulated in the notification as 31.10.2016, the common entrance examination was conducted on 05.12.2016, the result was declared in the month of January, 2017 and the first round of counselling was held on 14.03.2017; by virtue of which Rule 11(1) of the 2017 Rules which were brought into effect only from "03.04.2017" is not applicable. It is in the said context that the Petitioners seek to place reliance on the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.05.2017 in Abhishek Halder & Another v. State of Chattisgarh & Others {Writ Petition (C) No. 919 of 2017} in respect of the very same selection process.

14. The issue involved in the above case relates to the question whether the State Government was justified in confining the admissions only to those persons who had obtained MBBS degree from the medical colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. The contention of the Petitioners therein was that they had obtained MBBS degrees from medical colleges outside the State of Chhattisgarh, that they competed in the NEET PG 2017 conducted by the National Board of Examinations (which is the competent authority to conduct the test) and were included in the list prepared by the 2 nd Respondent for allotment under the 'State Quota'. However, admission was denied on the ground that as per the 2017 Rules, it was to be confined only to those persons who had obtained MBBS degree from the medical colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. It was in the said circumstances that reliance was placed on the law declared by the Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another; {(2008) 3 SCC 512} contending that the subsequent change in the rule position cannot place any hurdle on the way of the Petitioners in getting admissions based on the selection process started and finalised already. It was accordingly, that the relevant rules were read down, holding that they would not apply to the selection and admission to the State Quota for the Medical PG course in the State of Chhattisgarh, from among the candidates who had succeeded in the NEET PG 2017 examinations, giving necessary consequential directions. We have been given to understand that the relevant clause insisting to have the MBBS degree secured from the medical institutions in the State of Chhattisgarh, as it appeared in the 2018 Rules was considered by a Division Bench of this Court and the relevant Rule itself has been set aside as unconstitutional, as per the judgment dated 17.05.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 1338 of 2019). The said decision dated 16.05.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 919 of 2017 relating to the granting of admission in the year 2017 does not come to the rescue of the Petitioners who had obtained the admission in the year 2017 after executing necessary 'Bonds' in terms of Rule 11(1) of the 2017 Rules, completed their studies availing the subsidized higher education provided by the State and have now moved this Court years after arising the original cause of action, raising the challenge against the Rules.

15. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay has been explained in 'paragraph 7' of the writ petition, pointing out that after getting the admission, they were immediately given duties to look after the patients treated in the hospitals and that they were to attend the duties throughout the week without any leave as disclosed from Annexure P/2 duty chart. The above duty chart shows that it is only in respect of the period from January 2019 to August 2019. In other words, nothing is brought out to hold that their hands were fettered ever since after getting admission in the year 2017 and later in the year 2018 as well. In response to a specific query raised by this Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioners fairly conceded that no objection or representation was ever raised/preferred by the Petitioners against the 'Bond'. No such pleading is raised in the writ petition and no material has been produced.

16. That apart, Annexure P/1 Rules clearly provide under Rule 3(8), that the Petitioners were entitled to have 'Casual Leave' of 19 days every year and for such other benefits. The said Rule is extracted below:

“LANGUAGE”

17. There is no pleading that the relevant particulars as to the infrastructure available in the college or as to the 'essentiality of service' in the State were not uploaded in the website of the Medical Council of India (which fact is asserted by the learned counsel for the State, as having done on 23.01.2017 itself i.e. much before the counselling and giving the options, in terms of the relevant rules/regulations issued by the Medical Council of India/competent authorities). Further, inspite of the availability of sufficient leave as per Rule 3(8) of the Annexure P/1 Rules, the Petitioners contend that they were "apprehensive" in challenging the Rules; stating that if they had challenged the Rules, their educational career could have been at stake. This cannot be accepted as a valid reason for the inordinate delay and laches and this Court cannot but hold that the Petitioners were simply sleeping over the issue, unmindful of their rights and liberties, if any. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court is never to extend any relief to such persons. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India; {AIR 1970 SC 470}.

18. It can no longer be a matter of dispute, that the State is incurring huge expenditure for moulding a Medical professional, particularly at the higher level, when compared with the nominal fees which is being collected, at the same time providing reasonable sum towards the 'monthly Stipend'. It is in the said context, that the different States in the country, depending on the extent of expenditure in providing subsidized higher education, are stipulating different tenure as to the 'essentiality of service' to be undertaken by such students or else to satisfy the requisite amount by way of damages/compensation on the strength of the 'Bond' to be executed in this regard. This is with an intent to see that in consideration of the amounts being spent by the Government in moulding such higher level Doctors/Specialist Doctors, their services should be made available to the general public who mostly belong to the poor sector and are availing treatment in the Government Hospitals. In other words, it is in the 'larger public interest', that such a clause is provided and it applies equally to all the candidates, irrespective of the source from which they secure admission. To put it more clear, the contention of the Petitioners that the relevant clause stipulating execution of the 'Bond' is not applicable to them as they belong to a different class, having obtained admission in the 'All India Quota', is without any pith or substance and it is only to be repelled.

19. It is clear from Annexure P/3 allotment letters issued to the Petitioners, that by the time they were given allotment, Annexure P/1 Rules had already come into existence. No objection was ever raised at the time of execution of the 'Bond' or ever thereafter. It was without any demur, that the 'Bonds' were executed voluntarily. No plea of coercion, compulsion or malafides is raised in the writ petition. It is contended by the State that there is no much difference between Annexure P/1 Rules of 2017 and Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016 with regard to the onus to execute a 'Bond' for the minimum period of service under the State after successful completion of the course. It is stated that even under the Annexure P/6 Rules of 2016, there was such a provision as contained in 'Rule 12', which is extracted below:

"12. Essentiality of service under the Government of Chhattisgarh and compensation on abandonment of seat during mid-session. - (1) It would be compulsory for candidates taking admission in M.D./M.S./Diploma seats to serve under the Government of Chhattisgarh after successful completion of post graduate course for a period of two years. The unreserved candidates shall have to furnish a bond of Rs. 50 lakh and reserved candidates shall have to furnish a bond of Rs. 40 Lakhs for the same. (Proforma of Bond-Annexure VA and VB) (2) As per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of resigning from course after the prescribed last date of admission or abandonment of seat in mid of course before completion of the course or remaining absent for unauthorised period prescribed by the Counsel, then the candidate shall be liable to pay compensation as per prescribed bond. (Format Bond-Annexure-5)"

20. The terminology used in the said provision does not make it applicable only to the 'State Quota' candidates; nor it suggests that it will not be applicable to the 'All India Quota' candidates. The learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the 'form' in which the 'Bond' is to be executed is given under Annexure VA; the heading of which stipulates that it is the Bond proforma for candidates admitted in the Post Graduate Courses through 'State Quota' for compulsory Government Service. Annexure VB is the proforma of affidavit for candidates admitted in the Medical Colleges in Chhattisgarh, which is to be executed by both the State Quota as well as All India Quota candidates. It is settled law, that a rule is to be understood as per the contents of the rule and not by the form in which a Bond or such other document is to be executed under the Rules. That apart, as far as the State is concerned, the quantum of expenditure made by the State in providing the subsidized Medical education at higher level is the same, whether the candidate has come through the 'State Quota' or through the 'All India Quota'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, when a collective term is used in Rule 12 of Annexure P/6 Rules, the position has been made clear in more specific terms as contained in Rule 11(1) of the Rules 2017; to the effect that the 'Bond' has to be executed by both the State Quota as well as All India Quota candidates. We do not find any merit in the submission made from the part of the Petitioners in this regard. This is more so, in view of the fact that similar contention raised by the Appellants before the Apex Court in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra), arising from the High Court of Callcutta (a case where the challenge was raised by the candidates belonging to the All India Quota) and such other contentions have been repelled by the Apex Court.

21. Coming to the alleged infringement of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Specific Relief Act and the Contract Act, exactly similar contentions were raised by the parties to the litigation in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra). After referring to the factual context under which the different cases were originated from different States, the points for consideration were framed by the Apex Court in 'paragraph 16' in the following terms:

"Analysis.

16. The main points that require consideration are: 16.1. (I) Jurisdiction of the State Government. 16.2. (II) Violation of Fundamental Rights. 16.3. (III) Contract of Personal Service. 16.4. (IV) Restraint on Profession."

22. Each question was dealt with separately and after threadbare analysis, 'finding' was given under each of the above heads. With regard to the first question, as to the jurisdiction of the State Government, the Apex Court observed that Schedule VII List I Entry No. 66 to the Constitution refers to the co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for Higher Education or Research and Scientific and Technical institutions, whereas List III (Concurrent List) Entry No. 25 of the same Schedule deals with Education including Technical Education, Medical Education and Universities, subject to the provisions of Entries No. 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I (Union List). The Apex Court noted that legislation can be made by the State in relation to the Medical Education subject to the legislation made by the Parliament and since the Medical Council of India who is the competent authority with regard to the medical education in the country, has not made any provision in the Medical Council of India Act touching upon the subject matter of compulsory Bond, the States were at liberty to legislate on the subject matter of "Medical Bonds". It was also made clear that the executive authority of the State was co-extensive with that of the legislative power of the State Legislature and hence, even in the absence of any legislation, the State was free to issue 'Executive orders' under Article 162 of the Constitution on matters over which the State Legislature was having power to legislate. It was accordingly, that the contention of the Appellants before the Apex Court, that the States lacked competence to issue the notifications insisting for execution of the compulsory 'Bonds' at the time of admission to the Post Graduate courses/Super Specialty Courses due to lack of authority or competence, was held as not liable to be accepted as violative in any manner and hence, it was rejected.

23. With regard to the second question as to the violation of fundamental rights, the Apex Court observed that the decision of the Apex Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India; {(1999) 2 SCC 575} sought to be relied on by the Appellants was not with regard to the execution of the service 'Bonds' and hence was held as not applicable. The learned Judges observed that huge infrastructure had to be developed and maintained for running Medical Colleges with postgraduate and superspecialty courses and that the amount of fees charged from the students was meagre in comparison to the fee structure in the Private Medical Colleges; apart from the fact that reasonable 'Stipend' was also being paid to them. It was accordingly observed that, the 'policy decision' taken by the State Governments to utilise the services of the Doctors, who were beneficiaries of the Governmental assistance to complete their Higher Education, for a short tenure, cannot be termed as arbitrary.

24. With regard to the reasonableness of the terms contained in the compulsory Bond, the Apex Court noted that the tenure of 'essentiality of service' was different in different States and the quantum of damages in case of failure also differed from one State to another. It was accordingly, that the State Governments and the Armed Forces Medical Colleges were directed to consider imposing the condition of compulsory service for a period of 'two years'; in default of which the Doctors were to compensate the Government by paying Rs. 20 lakhs (Paragraph 19). The Apex Court felt the need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to compulsory Bonds (as noted in paragraph 41) and hence, it was suggested that suitable steps might be taken by the Union of India and the Medical Council of India to have a uniform policy regarding compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in Government institutions.

25. With reference to the contention of the Appellants that the execution of compulsory 'Bonds' at the time of granting admission violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, it was observed by the Apex Court in 'paragraph 20', that there was no inherent right for any individual to receive Higher Education and that violation of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) would not arise in a case pertaining to admission in a college. The condition imposed, of course, has a connection with the professional activity of a Doctor on completion of the course; which however does not exist as on the date of securing the admission. It was thus held that there was no violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

26. In relation to the contention raised as to the infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution, as to the invasion of personal liberty on executing the compulsory 'Bonds' virtually affecting their right to life, the Apex Court observed that there is an obligation for the State to safeguard the 'right to life' of every person, as preservation of human life is of paramount importance. The Government Hospitals run by the State and the Medical Officers employed by them are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life and any failure in this regard would amount to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, it is the obligation of a 'welfare state' for creation and sustaining the conditions congenial to good health. It is with reference to this obligation, that the Apex Court made it clear in 'paragraph 30', that the State is obliged to uphold the dignity of larger section of the society and that the objective of the policy is to ensure that the specialist health care is extended to the 'have-nots' also. The Apex Court went further to hold that,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

where there is a conflict between the rights of the community and the rights of the Appellants, as held by the Apex Court already in Ratanbhai Sayeed v. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat; {(2016) 4 SCC 631}, the private interest has to take a back seat when larger public interest is involved. Thus, it was declared that the 'right to life' guaranteed under Article 21 meant the right to life with human dignity and while balancing the communitarian dignity vis-a- vis the dignity of private individuals, the scales must tilt in favour of the communitarian dignity. It was further made clear in unequivocal terms that the laudable objective with which the State Governments have introduced compulsory service Bonds is to protect the fundamental rights of the deprived lot in the society, guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The contention raised to the contrary by the Appellants was rejected accordingly. 27. With regard to alleged infringement of Article 21(1) of the Constitution of India, raised by the Appellants, that execution of the Bonds amounts to forced labour, the Apex Court has made a reference to the mandate of Article 23(2) which confers power on the State to impose compulsory service for public purpose (with reference to the Constituent Assembly debates). It has been held that the Appellants who are required to work for a short period, on a decent Stipend, cannot complain that they were made to perform forced labour, especially after the Appellants have taken an informed decision to avail the benefits of admission in Government Medical Colleges and received subsidized education. Similarly, it was held by the Apex Court that the plea raised by the Appellant that the execution of service 'Bonds' was contrary to the mandate of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act which prohibited the enforcement of contracts of personal service was devoid of any merit. 28. Coming to the question/point No. 4 that the compulsory 'Bonds' would place a restraint on the profession of the Appellants and hence would be violative of the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872, the Apex Court has held that the conditions of compulsory Bonds for admission to the Post Graduate and Super Specialty Courses in the Government Medical Colleges are not in violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act, 1872. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and all the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed, holding that all the Doctors who have executed compulsory Bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein. 29. Applying the dictum to the facts of the present case, it needs no further discussion to hold that all the points raised by the Petitioners in the present writ petition stand already dealt with and answered by the Apex Court; which stands against the Petitioners. Apart from the inordinate delay and laches, there is absolutely no merit as well, in the writ petition. Validity of Rule 11(1) of Annexure P/1 Rules of 2017 stands repelled. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. 30. Though the course and conduct of the Petitioners is liable to be deprecated, we reluctantly refrain from imposing any cost.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-10-2020 K.Jayapandi Versus The Registrar Tamil nadu Medical Council, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-10-2020 K.R. Devadurai Versus The Director The Director of Technical Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2020 Sheetal Tripathi & Others Versus U.O.I. Thru H.R.D. Ministry Higher Education Deptt. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
14-10-2020 G. Ramesh Versus The Joint Director of Higher Education, Directorate of Government Examination, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-10-2020 Vikram Vilas Mane Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2020 Kasthuribai Versus The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-10-2020 Vineet Ruia Versus Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of West Bengal and Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-10-2020 Riddhima Singh Through: Her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Versus Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Nilay Gupta Versus Chairman Neet PG Medical & Dental Admission/Counselling Board 2020 & Principal Govt. Dental College & Others Supreme Court of India
09-10-2020 Dr. B.S. Ravikumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-10-2020 Alwin Martin, Sweeper, St.Mary's High School, Coimbatore & Another Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Represented by Its Manager Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Jackson Laboratories Private Limited., Represented by its Managing Director Jugal Kishore, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 The Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai & Others Versus A. Inpavalli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar Paryayi Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
21-09-2020 V. Durai Versus The Dean, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, Thanjavur & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-09-2020 Dr. B. Chandrashekara Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Education Department (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-09-2020 Dr. Battepati C. Narasimhulu Versus The Director of Medical Education High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 Shridhar Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Preeti Rathod & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
31-08-2020 The Correspondent, Sacred Heart Girls Higher Secondary School, Virudhunagar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2020 Sunil @ Sunilsing Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. SPP., Kalaburagi & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
25-08-2020 P. Meenakshi Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
21-08-2020 Sunil Kumar Bishnoi Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
21-08-2020 Suresh Kumar Banjare Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Education, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-08-2020 Sheela & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Dr. Aminu Aliyar Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences High Court of Delhi
19-08-2020 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Another Versus Arun Kumar Jain & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Dr. B. Ganesh Versus The Principal Navodaya Medical College, Raichur & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-08-2020 The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (G1) Department, Chennai & Others Versus M. Selvaraj Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 Rohit Verma Versus State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education Lukcnow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-08-2020 Sunil Agrawal Versus Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Through its Chairman, Naya Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-08-2020 Ayush Medical Association Through Member Dr. Mahendra Kumar Sao, (Central Council), Chhattisgarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-08-2020 The Secretary to the Government, Department of Education Fort St. George, Chennai & Others Versus P. Dhanapackiathai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. its Secretary School Education Department, Chennai & Others Versus S. Venkatachalam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Chennai Versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 T.M. Vasanthakumari & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 The Principal & Secretary, Lady Doak College, Madurai Versus The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-08-2020 Tamil Nadu Elementary School Teacher's Federation, Rep. by its District Secretary, A. Justin Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others Versus The Correspondent, St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Tuticorin Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-08-2020 Chandresh Kumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Higher Education Department, Raipur, (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-08-2020 The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai & Others Versus A. Brinda Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 M. Natarajan Versus The State Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Dr. Ambadan Rao & Others Versus State of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
27-07-2020 T. Ranjeeth Singh Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-07-2020 S. Esakkiammal Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2020 M/s. Sree Lakshmi Sreenivasa College of Education & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-07-2020 Sunil Rathee & Others Versus The State of Haryana & Others Supreme Court of India
23-07-2020 Sunil N. Godhwani Versus State High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 R. Parimala Versus The Dean, Thanjavur Medical College & Hospital, Thanjavur & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-07-2020 Divya Gulati Versus State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical Health & Family Welfare Department, Velagapudi & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 M/s. Vismaya Advertising, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Manager Sunil S. Menon & Another Versus The Intelligence Officer (IB), Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry at Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-07-2020 Kamla Nehru Educational Society Thru Secy. Shri Sunil Dev & Others Versus State of U.P. Thru Secretary Housing & Urban Planning & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
07-07-2020 Sunil Yadavrao Beedkar Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-07-2020 K.J. Sunil Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.R. Vinod Kumar High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Ishwar Chander & Another Versus Sunil Saran High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-07-2020 Sree Gokula Chit & Finance Co (Pvt.) Ltd Versus Sunil Sabu High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 West Bengal Medical & Sales Representative Union & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-06-2020 Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj (The Name of the Petitioner typed as “Sunil Raj” in the cause title of the Memorandum of Crl.M.C., Synopsis, Index and petition for Interim Direction and on The Docket is corrected as “Susil Raj” as per order dated 12.11.2019 in CRL.M.A.No.1/2019 in CRL.M.C.No.1797/2017.) Versus Gopan & Another High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 Santosh Singh Gehlot Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
29-06-2020 M. Bhavani Manimari Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-06-2020 Satchidanand S. S. Kacodkar (since deceased, representing through) legal representatives) & Others Versus Megaxma Ramacrishna Sinai Cacodkar @ Dr. Meghasham Ramkrishna Sinai Kakodkar, Medical Practitioner, (deceased) & his wife) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 Dr. S. Anusha Versus The Director of Medical and Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 Post Gradugate Institute of Medical Education & Research Versus Tarandeep Singh Grewal & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-06-2020 M/s. New Green Medical Hall Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-06-2020 M/s. Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association Versus The Special Chief Secretary to Government Health Medical & Family Welfare Department Secretariat Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-06-2020 C.C. Girija & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Dr. K.M. Senthamizhselvan, State President, Ayush Medical Welfare Association, Thiruvannamalai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2020 K.K. Jayasree Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-06-2020 Dr. Debajit Das & Another Versus Williamson Magor Education Trust & Others & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-06-2020 Tanveer Jahan Versus All India Institute Of Medical Science, Through Its Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-06-2020 Sunil Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Correspondent, St.Antony's Girls Primary School, Near Head Police Office, Coimbatore & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. K.Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Dr. G. Gowthaman Versus The Joint Director, Medical & Rural Health Services, Tiruppur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-05-2020 M. Lokesh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Education, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 The Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Trichur & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by The Secretary To Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-05-2020 K. Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court