Gujarat High Court
Rajesh Manibhai Patel vs Gujarat Medical Education Research ... on 20 September, 2021
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12640 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12640 of 2021
==========================================================
RAJESH MANIBHAI PATEL
Versus
GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT
OF GUJARAT UNDERTAKING RUN MEDICAL COLLEGE
==========================================================
Appearance:
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN M JAYSWAL(5878) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 20/09/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard, the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 , party- in-persons, and the learned Advocate, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, for Respondent No.1.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the release of certain original documents which were submitted by Petitioner No.2, at the time of taking admission in First Year of the MBBS Course in the year 2015 in the medical college run by the Gujarat Medical Education Research Society( 'GMERS'), Himmatnagar.
2.1 The Petitioners have also prayed for the release of the documents by Respondent No.1 with regard to completion of internship certificate Page 1 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 and the other documents which are required for registration as a professional doctor, on completion of internship by Petitioner No.2- Dr. Neel Rajeshbhai Patel.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that today learned Advocate, Mr. Jayswal, appearing for Respondent No.1 has tendered the original documents, which were submitted by Petitioner No.2 at the time of taking admission in the First Year of MBBS Course with Respondent No.1 and Petitioner No.2 who is also present as party-in-person before this Court has verified the same and has submitted that he has received all the original documents and the mark-sheets, which were submitted by him at the time of taking admission in the college of Respondent No.1 in the year 2015.
3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal stated that as per letter dated 06.07.2015 issued by the GMERS and addressed to the Principal Secretary, Central Admission Committee for Professional Medical Courses Respondent No.1 was granted permission to start a new medical college from the Academic Year 2015-2016. It was submitted that as per the said letter, of the GMERS, admissions were given on condition that the students who gets admission in the First Year of MBBS Course are required to Page 2 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 give either bond or Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) if such students do not agree to render services of one year in Government hospitals in rural areas for one year on completion of MBBS Course. It was submitted that a condition was accordingly inserted in the Provisional Admission order dated 31.07.2015 that Petitioner No.2 was provisionally admitted in the First Year of MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2015-2016 in the college of GMERS at Himmatnagar, subject to production of bond and solvency of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) or in the form of bank guarantee of any nationalized bank.
3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal, thereafter, submitted that the Petitioner No.2 never furnished such a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- which is required as per the Admission Order dated 31.07.2015, which is available at Page No. 17 of this petition, and thereafter, Respondent No.1 requested Petitioner No.2 to furnish the bond, time and again. However, Petitioner No.2 did not submit the same and taking sympathetic view, Respondent No.1 permitted Petitioner No.2 to complete his MBBS Course. It was submitted that as the petitioner no.2 neither submitted the bond nor he agreed to serve in the Government medical college for one year on completion of MBBS Course Respondent No.1 did not release the documents Page 3 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 which were taken at the time of admission and other documents were also not provided to Petitioner No.2 for the purpose of further studies or for obtaining registration as professional doctor under the Gujarat Medical Council Rules.
3.3 Learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal also referred to the Government Resolution dated 14.08.2019, issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State of Gujarat and pointed out that as per Condition No. 22 of the said Resolution, the students who have taken the benefit of the Mukhyamantri Yuva Swavlamban Yojna (MYSY),the students on completion of the MBBS Course are required to render services for one year in a government medical college in a rural area and as a guarantee, such students are required to give bonds of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh) to the Dean of the Medical College run by the GMERS and such student would not be required to provide bond of Rs.2,00,000/- as per letter dated 06 th July,2015.
3.4 Learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal submitted that Petitioner No.2 has availed the benefit of MYSY and was required to give bond as per the letter dated 06.07.2015 prior to 2019.
Page 4 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 3.5 It was therefore submitted that when Petitioner No.2 has refused to give bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) and has also not agreed to render services in government on completion of MBBS Course, Respondent No.1 may be permitted to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, the petitioners have appeared as party-in-persons and have raised various contentions, i.e. non-supply of original documents by Respondent No.1 to Petitioner No.2 on completion of internship period etc. The Petitioners have also tendered written arguments during the course of hearing today.
4.1 So far as the aspect of return of original documents is concerned, it is submitted by the petitioners that Petitioner No.2 have received back all the original documents which were tendered by him at the time of admission in the First Year of MBBS Course, which are as under:
(I) School Leaving Certificate (Original);
(II) Standard-12 Mark-sheet (Original);
(III) Socially and Economically Weaker Section Certificate issued by Mamlatdar (Original);Page 5 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 (IV) Socially and Economically Weaker Section Certificate issued by Taluka Development Officer (Original);
(V) GUJCET-2015 (Original);
(VI) Admission Order (Original);
(VII) Tuition Fee Receipt (Original);
(VIII) T.Y. M.B.B.S. Part-I Mark-sheet (Original);
(IX) T.Y. M.B.B.S. Part-II Mark-sheet (Original);
4.2 It was submitted that Respondent No.1 has still not given Internship Completion Certificate and all other consequential documents which are required by Petitioner No.2 to pursue the further studies abroad.
4.3 With regard to the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) by Respondent No.1, following averments are made in the written arguments submitted by the petitioners today:
"a. Not informed as per cited GR dated 06-07-2015 i. At admission stage only, If they had informed in proper manner rather than through admission notice in half page chit Page 6 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 which could be ambiguous and so misconstrued as it was in the case of the Petitioner as bond is not applicable for SFI so that general condition would be ignored except for the government subsidized medical colleges with 'quid pro quo' arrangement of stipulated rural service or return the subsidies given through written contract in prior and not as an afterthought, as cost recoveries.
ii. Surreptitious attempt of bringing GMERS, a 'no-profit motive' initiative of Government of Gujarat through an undertaking Gujarat Medical Education Research Society run medical colleges in stages ; all as SFls nonetheless vis a vis profit motivated private corporate or religious cults etc. run SFis which Petitioner also sought clarification for as believed to be otherwise from the common medical college application form filed and available information based on which ethically and morally exercising decision despite getting an admission in NHL under Ahmedabad quota with much better return of fees paid for(Rs.396,000) and GCS Admission available, forgoing despite immense prejudice caused through paper leaks in certain regions of the state which results statistics itself confirmed overwhelmingly and ostensibly.
Iii. Furthermore when the surreptitious attempt made in August2015 itself through seemingly false press report for GMERS Medical Colleges receiving government aid when it was clearly not the case as it was afresh in petitioner's mind then since having the form filled out not long ago. The Petitioner No.1 immediately wrote an email to the Dean of GMERS Sola whose web- site was functional then vis a vis GMERS Page 7 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 Himmatnagar requesting someclarification but went unanswered, little was known that this would start some absurd response after conclusion of MBBS Degree Requirements which suggests only one thing thatblatant hegemony to force anyone to succumb in absence of carpe-diem remedy forth-coming from Constitutional Judiciary; but forgetting the judicial power to punish with compensation as assumed to be impractical, albeit amounting to undue advantage of people's helplessness who need to go for expensive pursuit of justice that too falling in their lap but for the Party In Person. Though now it too cost dearly for having to do many times commuting against cost when Fuel price hovering around Rs.100 per liter which is also quite significant with personal time wasted unless heard over VC not discounting.
iv. In 2016 communication when it was received in form of demand for the unconstitutional bond which was immediately replied and then followed up with emails to Secretary HE(Health Education), Secretary Legal and MoS for H&FW including the sender; the Dean of GMERS Medical College, Himmatnagar.
v. Since no replies were received and then applicant having exercised reasonable man's doctrine for either of enquiries earlier had to confirm with a known student at GMERS Sola in 2011-12 batch if any such bond was given or demanded and it came in negative so concluded it to be mistaken communication and thus no reply from any one of them.
b. August-2015 email communication was not Page 8 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 answered addressed to available email to the Dean of GMERS Medical College at Sola, Ahmedabad.
c. November-2016 demand was inquired into with 2011-12 students for Bond which came in negative. Thus keeping with Article[14] it had to be assumed to be mistaken and Unconstitutional.
d. Emails were not replied to by Secretary HE, Secretary Legal and MOS Health and Family welfare which then concluded to be mistaken communication and thus no response.
e. The now relied GR which was kept hidden from the petitioner and all others since everyone gave it in 2016 mostly under duress and besides Admission Order relied upon by Respondents which is misleading argument to begin with due to reasons of the nature of common instructions to all the Students including Government Medical Colleges where subsidized education is being offered for meager Rs.6,000 for Rural Services as 'quid pro quo' or Bond money as cost recovery is demanded as an exit option and Application form kept from Honorable Court's perusal until it was belatedly located by the Petitioner and having been submitted.
f. The Admission form details were suppressed by GP Office which is one of many misleading statements made before various benches of Honorable High Court which has mislead the Court and Petitioner was stopped from making clarification all along till HMsJ SKV who bifurcated the Document withholding as a separate issue though consistent with R/SCA/6406/2021 prayer clause[9].Page 9 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 g. Interestingly as now came to be known from one of the BMC Transcript and it being a Government Medical College and having Signed Bond agreement for Rural Service with cost recovery option(including interest) which would have been known to the Petitioner to challenge itself in 2018 especially unanswered emails earlier back in 2015 and 2016, if GMERS was similarly issued despite an SF! but kept from us which now upon conclusion of MBBS Degree requirements has to be taken as Criminal Conspiracy u/s IPC 120,120A and 120B as well as extortionist under S-383,384 and 385 read with S-166(supra) for which SCrA/ 57 14/2021 was filed but disposed and now culpable for damages caused with further punitive action/damages at the discretion of the Honourable Court.
h. Even CEO GMERS realizing the blunder and issuing the directions which could have been a stopgap measure if followed so to have stopped the further damages caused as read with Gujarat Medical Council circular dated 05/05/2021 where without even parting with the documents Provisional and Permanent Doctor's Registration would be possible and reminded via email on 09-05-2021 before that after circular with Documents in our possession and photocopies of the ones to be issued and in possession of GMERS.
i. There is no Policy or could be any rule as Testimonials are the property of the Student especially sent to the Institute by University to distribute among the students respectively BUT very wrongly Page 10 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 used as a leverage and subject the student and his parent to extortion through conspiracy.
j. The absence of the Policy and alacrity shown by the Honorable Gujarat High Court in R/SCA/2861/2021 despite the student's father; not having paid the pending Tuition Fees, the academic year was saved for SMIMER student; one Jawal Suraj Chhasiya, which now has to be met with the equitable justice through compensation as entire academic year of the Petitioner's Son here; has been ruined and damages continuing unless the Honorable Court intervenes and stops it from spilling into second academic year at PG Level for completely hegemonic misconduct that too through serious statutory violations and 'illegal ab initio' as UNCONSTTUTONAL)"
4.4 With regard to MYSY Scholarship, the petitioners have made following submissions in the written arguments tendered today;
"C. MYSY Scholarship:
a. Merit based as conveyed by MYSY Gandhinagar Office that too wrongly 95 percentile above which almost always qualify most medical students so couldn't applied for petitioner's other son, depicting some bias at MYSY.
b. Additional Income criterion for which Income Certificate was demanded from TDO. Unfortunately the smoking gun was the unnecessary demangq of another Income Page 11 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 certifcate oespie clearly giving the income 6 declaration as prescribed therein and confirmed with the issuing authority for the first time.
c. There may be students in GMERS or Private Medical College of general category who couldn't be admitted to Government Medical Colleges because of Reservation were to be given the difference of Private Medical Colleges and Rs.6,000(Government Medical College Fees), e.g. For GMERS Medical College such student would be equated at par with Bonded Student for receiving Rs. 294,000 (300,000-6,000) but not others.
d. There may be students who received scholarship as weil as other Sahay under Girl Education Sahay etc. D. Damages:
a. Lost opportunity for ever the limited three-month internship at US hospital for US CLINICAL EXPERIENCE(USCE) as well as elective at US Hospital and getting another Letter of Recommendation from US of Hospital Dept. Head or the Dean in case of teaching hospital.
i. which is pivotal for USMLE; an examination for all medical students for pursuing Residency at US Hospital, what we call a PG Level.
ii. There was a procedure of submitting Final Year student proof in form of either the the marks-Page 12 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 sheet for TYMBBS Part-1 which was still awaited and in writing demanded Transcript up to TYMBBS Part-1 in Feb-2018, which is nothing but statement/list of marks received from FYMBBS up to TYMBBS Part-1 with few other academic details.
iii. It's also the proof of the final year student status, which is an only criterion but must for limited internship for better prospects for USMLE and primarily residency application and selection of option of branches of medicine in Residency at the Hospital.
b. The loss of employment at one of the Private Cardiac Hospitals was a double whammy as in 'Curriculum Vitae (CV)' terms which is the most detrimental as well as also in Financial Terms(750,000) for self-financing the USMLE Step-2 which was to be taken in December-2021 at the USA through Kaplan Institute under F-1 visa in August-2021 as per original academic schedule. c. Now Final damage if USMLE Step-1 not taken before 26-01-2022 which will deny the Applicant No.2 for USCE Observer- ship/externship at US Hospital as from then onwards no score is going to be reported for merit consideration. It is also noteworthy that Step-1 was planned to be taken in June-2020 and situation now is that even Registration for it is in limbo due to hegemony at GMERS Medical College at Himmatnagar sans Constitution of India under Fundamental Rights under Article[14], (19]{1]{g] and [21] and in violation of [23] besides aforementioned IPC violations.Page 13 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 d. Eligibility period, typically to be chosen from now the last possible single three-month slot as now feasible October-December'2021 as only available with very very few dates available at pro metric centers in India let alone at Ahmedabad.
e. NEET PG was denied due to same reasons which was to be taken for self appraisal before appearing for conducted USMLE in June-2020, albeit that could have been taken belated had there been interim relief for its registration before 15-March-2021 before the STEP-1 now in December-2021 or January-2022 for the same ratio but with one academic year spoiled already.
E. The Writ of mandamus is required for any malice or malarkey that may result for which Applicant No.1 was keeping Applicant No.2 out of the litigation that was also being avoided but for the non-compliance despite two Honorable Gujarat High Court standing Order by two different benches of HMJ AYK and HMJ BV for Bond matters similarly placed, R/SCA/8175/2020 with allied matters and R/SCA/9043/2020 respectively at MBBS Level and having filed the contempt petition under R/MCA/6406/2021 but denied for blatant misleading of (CP Office and Contempt Bench without allowing any counter arguments from the Petitoner for the technicalities of Orders not passed in the petitioners matters especially when Bond issue was stated to be settled and the Petitioner's case was different from others while hiding the requests made for an intervenor. Not even stopping there, the Counsels misguided the Dean's Office Page 14 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 despite HMJ BV finally declaring it to be a definite separate matter and declared so subsequently, as also submitted in an Affidavit which are also described in main matter petition in conformity with Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 under Rule174 under Related matters filed and disposed as directed/suggested by HMsJ SKV CAV. Order in R/SCA/6406/2020 dated 09-08-2021. Lastly it may be required to explicitly instruct Gujarat Medical Council to consider earlier Application filed on 24- 03-2021 as such without further complicating it due to no fault of Petitioners here. The same could be done for HNGU; the University for the last gasp available scarcely to the petitioners from falling into second academic year being wasted."
4.5 It was also orally submitted that in addition to the above written arguments that Bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) demanded by Respondent No.1 is nothing but extortion by Respondent No.1 as the petitioners were never put to notice about giving of such a Bond at the time of taking admission in the MBBS Course.
4.6 It was further submitted that Respondent No.1 is a self-financed institution and therefore Petitioner No.2 is not required to give bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) nor is required to render service in government for one year on completion of MBBS Course and therefore, there is no question of giving of Rs.2,00,000/- by Petitioner No.2 in lieu of rendering services in Page 15 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 government for one year on completion of MBBS Course.
4.7 With the above submissions the Petitioners relied upon E-mail dated 14.08.2015 wherein the petitioner no.1 has asked questions to Respondent No.1 about is status as self-financed institution. Said E-mail reads as under:
"Dear sir:
There is a news item where it is mentioned that government gives subsidy for medical education to GMERS Medical colleges whereas what is been announced during admissions that GMERS Colleges are SFI, WHICH IS THE TRUE STATEMENTS?
Secondly fees revision were done on the basis of bills furnished by SFI. What was the reasons for the increase of 50,000.00.
Thirdly if GMERS is a government medical college and receiving subsidy on what ground government is providing lesser subsidy so we have to charge 300,000.00 fees to meritorious Students instead of 6,000.00 as in other Government medical colleges?
Please reply so that we could update our understanding of SFI COLLEGES, Sent from RMP"
4.8 The petitioners thereafter placed reliance on E-mail dated 29.11.2016 addressed to Dr. Dipak Page 16 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 Mehta and the Dean of GMERS, Himmatnagar, raising various questions for demand of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Two Lakh) which reads thus:
"Dear Sir:
| have not received the clarifications requested in regards to your letter dated 18 November 2016 vide no.
GMERS/MCH/1300812/2016 which in fact the very first letter ever for the subject matter that is some BOND PAPER FOR Rs.200,000.00.
Though at the time of admission it has been mentioned in the Admission order regarding the Solvency and Bond of Rs. 200,000.00 or Bank Guarantee of Nationalized Bank for same amount against which Provisional Admission is granted besides other unrelated issues of which all are already complied with needless to mention as per the constitution.
From material handed over to my son from student section; what are they askir right now is more than guaranteeing the ability to pay for the education for which | would like further clarifications from your institute as follows:
1. Whether GMERS Medical colleges are Self-Financed institutes?____(Yes/NO)
2. Is our money collection for education from students comply with Fee Structure Laws prescribed by committee constituted as per law specific in this regards?
____(Yes/NO)
3. Whether similar bonds have been collected from students since the Page 17 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 commencements of GMERS Medical Colleges (Gandhinagar, Himmatnagar, Junagadh, Patan, Sola, Vadodara, Valsad)? ____(Yes/NO)
4. ARE THESE DEMAND CONSTITUTIONAL? _____(Yes/NO) Please guide me so I can proceed in the right direction."
4.9 Referring to the aforesaid E-mails it was submitted that the same were never replied by Respondent No.1 and therefore the petitioners were under the impression that Petitioner No.2 is not required to give bond.
4.10 It was also submitted that some of the students of other GMERS also have not given such bond.
5 In rejoinder to the aforesaid submissions learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal submitted that the arguments made by the petitioner are not true and correct and relied on the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 6406 of 2020 which were filed by the petitioner no.1 for being denied the benefit of MYSY which is already dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021. It was therefore requested that Respondent No.1 may be permitted to rely on the affidavit filed in the said proceedings and accordingly the said Page 18 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 affidavit is ordered to be taken on the record of this matter also.
5.1 It was submitted that in affidavit filed before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6406 of 2020, Respondent No.1 has stated in detail about the bond to be given by Petitioner No.2, because Petitioner No. 2 had preferred a Civil Application in the said Petition with similar prayers, which was rejected by the Court and therefore the petitioner has preferred this petition.
5.1.1 In that context learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal has relied on the following averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Dean of the GMERS, Himmatnagar, in Special Civil Application No. 6406 of 2020 which reads as under:
"7. As evident from the bare reading of the said scheme it offers monitory benefits for MBBS students to the extent of financial assistance of 50% of the tuition fees or Rs.2,00,000/whichever is less however, there are certain conditions precedent and procedural requirements to be fulfilled for availing such benefits including submissions of periodic and_ stipulated income Certificate with necessary proof there on. The officer on special duty, Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat has filed a detailed affidavit explaining the communication dated Page 19 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 15.02.2020 where under while considering the 4% renewal of the petitioner's son's application for scholarship income, discrepancies were noted. The present deponent refrains from elaborating as regards the same as it falls within the purview of the nodal officer managing MYSY Scheme.
8. In so far as grievance of the petitioner with regard to the release of certain documents referred herein above are concerned it is respectfully submitted that in the year 2015 vide resolution dated 06.07.2015 the Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society intimated the Chief Secretary Admission Committee for Professional Courses that a policy decision has been taken to obtain a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/for rural service on completing the MBBS course. Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society resolved that every student taking admission herein after on completion of their MBBS Course would have to render one year of Rural Service for which Rs.2,00,000/bond is required to be obtained. Accordingly the petitioner's son who obtained admission in the year 2015 was required to submit this bond of Rs.2,00,000/ensuring 1 year of Rural Service on completion of his MBBS course. The copy of the policy decision dated
06.07.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-Il.
9. It is noteworthy that every student having taken admission in the year 2015 has submitted the said bond. In so far as the petitioner is concerned despite repeated requests the said bond till date has not been submitted by him. Copies annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R-
Page 20 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 III are the copies of communication addressed to the petitioner's son in this regard.
10. Furthermore, the State Government, through Health and Family Welfare Department resolved vide resolution dated 14.08.2019 to impose a condition requiring students presently persuing MBBS Education and having availed of financial assistance under MYSY Scheme to provide one year of service in Rural area. The Government Resolution stipulates that all students having availed of Financial Assistance under MYSY scheme and pursuing MBBS in any medical collage run under GMERS or any other Self finance medical college having availed of MYSY Mukhiyamantri Kanya Kedavani Nidhi Scheme or Freeship under any of the above three referred financial assistance scheme will have to provide one year of service in Rural areas for which a bond of Rs.20,00,000/is to be submitted before the Additional Director, Medical Education and Research, Gandhinagar.
10.1 The said bond of Rs.20,00,000/is bifurcated into 2 parts, Rs.5 lakhs by way of a surety or a bank guarantee and undertaking of Rs. 15 lakhs on stamp paper of Rs.300/-. The said policy specifically stipulates that those who have submitted the bond of Rs.20,00,000/will be exempted from submitting the bond of Rs.2,00,000/as provided under the circular of GMERS dated 06.07.2015. I say and submit that a student suffering extreme financial constrain who is unable to produce a bank guarantee or property guarantee made it exempted from the submission of Rs.5 lakhs guarantee or solvency certificate as a special case however an undertaking on oath on the stamp paper duly notarize of Rs.300/for Rs.20,00,000/as a commitment of 1 year of Rural service need must be Page 21 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 produced. A copy of the Government Resolution dated 14.08.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-IV.
10.2 As the bond policy is made applicable vide Government Resolution 14.08.2019 to all students undergoing medical education and having availed of financial assistance under MYSY and Mukhiyamantri Kanya Kedavani Nidhi, applications and representations were received seeking exemption from Rs.20,00,000/bond stipulated herein above. After due consideration the Health and Family Welfare Department has issued a Government Resolution dated 30.01.2020 and allowed students to either submit the bond or to surrender the scholarship amount received by them. In any case Rs.2,00,000/ bond which was required at the time of admission for all GMERS students would still be necessary and the petitioner cannot be absolved of the same. A copy of the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-V.
11. The State Government has taken a policy decision for requiring 1 year of Rural Service for all students availing financial benefits under various Government Schemes for the public interest. By way of financial aid granted to the petitioner till date over the period of four years the petitioner has been awarded financially to the extent of around Rs. 5,00,000/-. For all self finance colleges including GMERS a policy decision has been taken that all those who have received financial aid under various government financial assistance schemes would be asked to offer one year of rural Page 22 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 service. The petitioner from the very outset has declined to submit any such bond and on account of which his documents as referred to herein above have not been released. A multiple joiner of courses with brazen allegation across different officers and appointees, is an endeavor to avoid the responsibility of offering a bond, ensuring one year of rural service. The policy decision as contained in Government Resolution of 2019 is applicable to all having availed, financial aid under various schemes. The State Government would like to see that such doctors, having been offered opportunities to undergo medical studies, with financial Aid grated by the State government, offer one year of service to the rural population. It is the responsibility of every student having received benefits to pass on some of it to the less fortunate, not in monitoring terms, but by way of service. It is this laudable object which is enshrined in the Government Resolution of 2019. As soon as the petitioner offers the bond as_ stipulated in the Government Resolution of 2019, necessary documents would be released. In view of what is submitted herein above, though the present petition seeking benefit would not be maintainable by way of writ petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India in order to ensure that the interest of the student does not suffer, Submissions are made on the contention raised in civil application and the writ petition."
5.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Jayswal also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 'ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALTY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA', Page 23 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 (2019) 8 SCC 607, wherein the Apex Court has held that in case of compulsory bonds to be executed for admission to post-graduate medical courses and super specialty courses in the government colleges, the clause of compulsory service is not unreasonable. However, the Apex Court directed the State Governments and the Armed Forces Medical College to consider imposing the condition of compulsory service period of two years and in default to pay recompensate the Government by paying Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh).
5.3 It was therefore submitted that in the facts of the present case, the services to be rendered in the Government hospital in the rural area by a qualified doctor on completion of MBBS Course is one year and bond is of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) which is subsequently increased to Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh) in the year 2019. It was hence submitted that the petitioner cannot deny to submit bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) and or to render service in government hospital in the rural rural area for one year, as a condition precedent to his admission in the MBBS Course.
6. Thus, on having heard the learned Advocate for the Respondent-Authorities and the petitioners as party-in-persons following Page 24 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 undisputed facts emerges on record:
(i) Petitioner No.2 was granted admission on provisional basis on the condition of furnishing bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) in the year 2015;
(ii) Petitioner No.2 has not furnished such bond of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lakh) till date and on the contrary opposed the same time and again before Respondent No.1;
(iii) It is not in dispute that the students of all the GMERS have tendered such bonds in lieu of rendering services in the government on completion of MBBS Course, except, Petitioner No.2;
(iv) Petitioner No.2 has already been provided the original documents, which were submitted by Petitioner No.2 at the time of taking admission in MBBS Course in the year 2015 and for the remaining documents Petitioner No.2 shall have to approach Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 may provide such documents in accordance with law to Petitioner No.2, but, at the same time, Respondent No.1 is also held entitled to recover Page 25 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) from the Petitioners in view of the following observations made by the Apex Court in 'ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALTY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS' (Supra), which reads as under:
"18. The Appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the State Governments imposing conditions for their admission in the post-graduate courses and super Speciality courses. According to them, the State Governments have understood the decision of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) to be a restraint on the exercise of their power in matters relating to eligibility criteria for admission to medical course. Suddenly, the introduction of the compulsory bonds after 15 years of the judgment in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) is the result of decision taken by the State Governments which is dubbed by the Appellants as arbitrary. This Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) was concerned with the additional eligibility criteria being introduced by the State Governments for the 15% All India Quota students. The decision taken by the State Governments to impose a condition of compulsory bond for admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality is on the basis of relevant material. Huge infrastructure has to be developed and maintained for running medical colleges with post- graduate and super Speciality courses. The amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison to the private medical colleges. Reasonable Page 26 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 stipend has to be paid to the doctors. Above all, the State Governments have taken into account the need to provide health care to the people and the scarcity of super specialists in their States. Consequently, a policy decision taken by the State Governments to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of Government assistance to complete their education cannot be termed arbitrary.
B. Reasonableness
19. Reasonableness is a ground that pervades through the submissions made by the counsel on both sides. In the State of West Bengal, the requirement of a compulsory bond was initially a service of one year in the State in default of Rs.10 Lakhs was to be paid. This was enhanced to three years and Rs.30 Lakhs by a Notification dated 09.10.2014. In the State of Tamil Nadu, the bond condition was that a doctor has to serve for ten years in the State and in default of which, the doctor was to pay Rs.2 Crores. This was reduced to two years and Rs.50 Lakhs. The Armed Forces Medical College imposes a condition of five years compulsory service in the Army for post- graduate and super Speciality doctors who prosecuted their study in the college. They have an option of not serving for five years by recompensing the Government by paying Rs.25 Lakhs. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the Appellants is that the condition of a long period of service that is imposed is unreasonable. The basis for the submission is that they have already served the society by working in Government hospitals Page 27 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 while undergoing their course. Further conditions imposed on them would impede the progress of their careers. Restrictions placed on their choice of place of work are also unreasonable according to them. An alternate submission made by the counsel appearing for the Appellants is that the imposition of the condition of compulsory bond should be reasonable and the exit clause should be relaxed. Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of compulsory service and a default clause are per se not unreasonable. However, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the doctors that the period of compulsory service and the exit should be reasonable. The State Governments and the Armed Forces Medical College are directed to consider imposing the condition of compulsory service period of two years in default of which the Doctors shall recompense the Government by paying Rs. 20 Lakhs.
Article 19:
20. According to the Appellants, the right to carry on their profession which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) is violated by the compulsory bonds. They contend that the compulsory bonds place a restriction on their right to carry on their profession on completion of their course. It is also submitted that any restriction on their right to carry on their profession by the State Government can be made only by a "law" as per Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Notifications that were issued by the State Governments fall foul of Article 19(1)(g). The compulsory bond executed by the Appellants is at the time of their Page 28 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 admissions into post-graduate and super Speciality courses. Conditions imposed for admission to a medical college will not directly violate the right of an individual to carry on his profession. The right to carry on the profession would start on the completion of the course. At the outset, there is no doubt that no right inheres in an individual to receive higher education. Violation of a right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a college. There is no doubt, that the condition that is imposed has a connection with the professional activity of a doctor on completion of the course. However, the Appellants have, without any protest, accepted the admissions and executed the compulsory bonds. Execution of bonds is part of a composite package. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court that the Appellants have not been able to succeed in their attempt of assailing the Notifications for being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We uphold the said finding of the Division Bench.
Article 21
21. The Appellants contended before the Calcutta High Court that their liberty is curtailed by the compulsory bonds. The scope of liberty which has been enhanced by this Court includes personal autonomy to take decisions relating to their profession. It was contended that the condition requiring them to compulsorily work for a certain period of time with theGovernment corrodes their liberty, affecting their right to life. They relied upon judgments of this Court in Kharak Page 29 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 Singh v. State of U.P.15 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 16 while advancing this submission. Referring to a judgment of this Court in Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (supra), the High Court held that private rights, when in conflict with public interest, have to take a back seat. The High Court also recalled what Marcus Tullius Cicero said about the good of the people being the chief law.
22. Article 21 of the Constitution of India imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The Government hospitals run by the State and the Medical Officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.17 Therefore, in a welfare State it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health.18 15 AIR 1963 SC 1295 16 (2017) 10 SCC 1 17 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC 37 18 Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165.
23. Article 47 of the Constitution reiterates the constitutional obligation imposed on the State to improve public health. The Directive Principle provides as follows:Page 30 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 "47. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health."
24. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India19 it was held that maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged. It was further observed in the above judgment that attending to public health, therefore, is of high priority- perhaps the one at the top.
25. It is for the State to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty. No doubt the Government is rendering this obligation by opening Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue of waiting 19 (1981) 1 SCC 246 lists, and it has to provide all facilities to employ best of talents and tone up its administration to give effective contribution, which is also the duty of the Government20.
26. Right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities 21. The fundamental right to life which is the most precious Page 31 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must therefore be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person. The right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and the restriction would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair 20 State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 21 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 83 and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights22.
27. To live is to live with dignity. The draftsmen of the Constitution defined their vision of the society in which constitutional values would be attained by emphasizing, among other freedoms, liberty and dignity. So fundamental is dignity that it permeates the core of the rights guaranteed to the individual by Part III of the Constitution. Dignity is the core which unites the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights seek to achieve for each individual the dignity of existence 23.
Page 32 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
28. The State's obligations are not satisfied solely by refraining from imposing limitations on the right to human dignity. The State must also take action to protect human dignity and to facilitate its realization. The constitutional right to dignity is intended to ensure human beings' political and civil liberties as well as their social and economic freedoms24.
29. Dr. A. K. Sikri. J. in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India25 observed that the realisation of intrinsic worth of every human being as a member of society is an indispensable condition, and has been recognised as an important human right. Truly speaking, this is directed towards the deprived, downtrodden 22 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 23 K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) 24 Aharon Barak, Human Dignity: the Constitutional Value and the Constitutional Right in Christopher McCrudden (ed.), Understanding Human Dignity, Proceedings of the British Academy, 192, pp. 361-80 at p. 367. 25 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 1 [AADHAAR 5JB]. and the have-nots. He further held that the humanistic concept of human dignity which is to be accorded to that particular segment of the society has to be kept in mind. Their human dignity is based on the socio-economic rights that are read into the fundamental rights. The importance of the communitarian approach along with the individualistic approach to human dignity was addressed by Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. in the above judgment. The learned Judge emphasised on the role of the State and Page 33 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 community in establishing collective goals and restrictions on individual freedoms and rights on behalf of a certain idea of the good life.
30. We accept the submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the State of West Bengal that the positive obligation of the State to uphold the dignity of a larger section of the society is to protect the rights conferred on them by Article 21 of the Constitution. The immediate need of the deprived sections of the society to have proper health care was the reason behind the policy decision of the Government. The objective of the policy is to ensure that specialist health care is extended to the have-nots also.
31. The next question that arises is whether there is a conflict between the rights of the community and the rights of the Appellants. As stated earlier, the right that is claimed by the Appellants is to make an individual choice to carry on their profession which might be hindered by the decision of the Government. On the other hand, the basic idea behind the Government's decision is larger public interest. The judgment of this Court in Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (supra) relied upon by the High Court is to the effect that private interest has to take a back seat when pitted against public interest. In Mr. X v. Hospital 'Z',26 Saghir Ahmad J speaking for this Court, held that:
44....Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant's right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms 'Y's right to lead a healthy Page 34 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court, for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay in the hall known as the courtroom, but have to be sensitive, "in the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day"." [emphasis supplied].
32. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recorded in the Preamble its recognition of the inherent 26 (1998) 8 SCC 296 dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes the right of every person to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. ICESCR mandates the States Parties to achieve full realization of the aforementioned right through the creation of conditions which would assure to all, medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness, inter alia.
33. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that right to life guaranteed by Article 21 means right to life with human dignity. Communitarian dignity has been recognised by this Court. While balancing communitarian dignity vis-à-vis the dignity of private individuals, the scales must tilt in favour of communitarian dignity. The laudable objective with which the State Governments Page 35 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 have introduced compulsory service bonds is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the Appellants that their rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated is rejected.
34. Article 23 reads as follows:
23. "(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them."
35. The submission of Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is that the conditions of the bond per se amount to 'forced labour' and thus are violative of Article 23 (1) of the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi expostulated the said submission by referring to Article 23 (2) which confers power on the State to impose compulsory service for public purpose. Reliance was placed upon the Constituent Assembly Debates by Mr. Dwivedi explaining the scope of compulsory employment for public purpose under Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a decent stipend cannot complain that they are made to perform 'forced labour', especially Page 36 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 after the Appellants have taken an informed decision to avail the benefits of admission in government medical colleges and received subsidized education. By no means, the service rendered by the Appellants in Government hospitals would fall under the expression of 'forced labour'.
36. The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court of the United States held that compulsory employment for public purpose does not amount to 'involuntary servitude' in Robertson v. Baldwin27 and Butler v.
Perry28. Article 23 (2) of the Constitution enables the State Governments to require the Appellants to do compulsory service in the Government hospitals which is undoubtedly for the benefit of the public.
III. Contract of Personal Service
37. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits the enforcement of contracts of personal service. The submission of Mr. Ahmadi that the contract of personal service, in the form of a compulsory bond, is not enforceable was dealt with by Mr. Dwivedi, who argued that the State Governments do not intend to enforce the contract in a court of law. It is trite law that Courts do not ordinarily enforce performance of contracts of personal character, such as a contract of employment 29. 27 165 U.S. 275 (1897) [US Supreme Court] 28 (1916), 240 U.S. 328,
329. Page 37 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 29 Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Rae Bareli & Anr. v. Badri Nath Dixit & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 54 Reference can be made to the judgment of Jessel, M.R., in Rigby v. Connol30 wherein he held that:
"The courts have never dreamt of enforcing agreements strictly personal in their nature, whether they are agreements of hiring and service, being the common relation of master and servant ...."
38. Specific performance of contract for personal service is not permissible under the Specific Relief Act, therefore, there cannot be a decree for specific performance of a contract of personal nature. None of the State Governments have made an attempt to enforce the contracts entered into by them with the Appellants through the service bonds. We are not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Ahmadi that the compulsory bonds fall foul of the Specific Relief Act.
IV. Restraint on Profession
39. The argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants that compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their profession and thus, would be contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The High Court of Calcutta repelled this submission by holding that the compulsory bond does not amount to any restraint on the professional activity of the Appellants. The High Court observed that the Appellants are offered the job of 30 (1880) 14 Ch D 482, 487 Medical Officer in the State of West Bengal and that the Page 38 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 covenant in the compulsory bond operates only during the period of such employment. Relying upon the dictum of Lord Morris in Esso Petroleum v. Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd.,31 that "if A made a contract under which he willingly agreed to serve B on reasonable terms for a few years and to give his whole working time to B, it would be surprising indeed, if it were sought to describe the contract as being in restraint of trade; in fact, such a contract would very likely be for the advancement of trade', the High Court concluded that a contract entered into by Appellants to serve the government for a few years under reasonable terms cannot be described as one in restraint of trade. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court of Calcutta. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the conditions of compulsory bonds for admission to post-graduate and super-Speciality courses in government medical colleges are not in violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872."
6.1 In view of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Apex Court it cannot be said that the condition of rendering of service in government by MBBS students on completion of MBBS Course is unreasonable in any manner, whatsoever. The argument raised by the Petitioners with regard to the fact that Respondent No.1 is a self-financed institution is also not tenable in law as it was a condition precedent for admission in the medical colleges run by Respondent No.1 Page 39 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 to furnish a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) and on that condition, provisional admission was granted to Petitioner No.2 and therefore it cannot be said that the Petitioners were not aware of the said condition at that point of time. After getting admission and on completion of MBBS Course of five years with Respondent No.1 it was a obligation on the part of Petitioner No.2 either to serve with the Government for one year or to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) by way of condition of bond for not rendering such services in order to pursue further studies abroad.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is accordingly, DISPOSED OF with the following directions:
(A) Respondent No.1 is held to be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) towards bond amount from the petitioners as per the conditions prescribed in the letter dated 06.07.2015 issued by the GMERS. Such recovery shall be in accordance with law, including the liberty to initiate proceedings under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, Page 40 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/12640/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for raising all the contentions, which the petitioners may raise in such proceedings;
(B) Respondent No.1 is further directed to give all the relevant documents to the petitioner in addition to the original documents which are supplied to the petitioner during the course of hearing today, in accordance with law;
Notice is accordingly discharged.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) UMESH/-
Page 41 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 16:25:31 IST 2022