Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 21.05.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 28 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:16476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.6521 of 2025
Reserved on: 21.05.2025
Date of Decision: 28.05.2025
__________________________________________________________
Hitesh Chanana and Others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and Others ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Bharat Thakur and Mr. Manish Sharma,
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for State.
__________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge:
By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
"i) That impugned order, if any, passed during the pendency of the writ petition refusing to relieve the petitioners from the conditions of bond executed by them may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to relieve the petitioners from the bond conditions;
ii) That the respondents may be directed to release the original MBBS degree to the petitioners along with undated cheques; "
2. For having bird's eye view, relevant facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties are that the petitioners herein, who completed their MBBS Degree from various 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:16476 -2- colleges across India during the year 2017 to 2020, appeared in NEET PG 2025 Examination for admission in PG courses and they all successfully qualified the same. Respondents-department issued Prospectus for the Session 2021-22 (Annexure P-2) for centralized counselling and admission to Post Graduate Degree (MD/MS) Courses. In terms of instructions contained in Prospectus, detailed hereinabove, petitioners, being eligible, applied for seat in MD/MS courses in State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioners No.1 to 28 secured seats in Post Graduate Courses in different subjects at IGMC, Shimla, as direct candidates, whereas petitioners No.29 to 46 also secured seats in Post Graduate Courses in different subject at RPGMC, Tanda. After their being given admission in Post Graduate Courses, they, in terms of PG/Super Specialty Policy (Annexure P-1) and Prospectus for the year 2021-22 (Annexure P-2), undertook to serve the State for two years after completion of PG Course, by executing a bond in the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- along with 18% interest per annum along with the salary drawn and also submitted their original MBBS Degrees.
3. For completion of facts, it is apt to take note of facts at this stage that vide Notification dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-1), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Health & Family Welfare notified PG/Super Specialty Policy for regulating admissions to various Post Graduation and Super Specialty Courses in Medical Education. Clause 6 of the said Policy deals with terms & conditions of 2025:HHC:16476 -3- bond for Post Graduation, Clause 6.8.2 whereof provides that bond condition is not applicable to those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any order for field posting within a month of their clearing the PG exam.
4. Terms & conditions of bond for Post Graduation as per the provisions of PG Policy notified by the Government vide Notification dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) was further incorporated in the Prospectus as Clause 11. Clause 11.8 of the Prospectus, under the heading "Exception" provides that conditions of bond will not be applicable to those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, fails to issue orders of field posting within a month of their clearing the PG Exams.
5. Vide gazette notification dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), the result of MD/MS final year examination of batch 2021 came to be declared, wherein petitioners amongst others were declared successful. Though result was declared on 07.03.2025, but posting orders of the petitioners in terms of Clause 6.8.2 of the Policy read with 11.8(ii) of the Prospectus were not issued within a period of one month and as such, petitioners submitted representation dated 09.04.2025, stating therein that since no posting orders were issued to them in terms of Clause 11.8(ii) of the Prospectus, conditions of bond cannot be made applicable to them and they be relieved from the bond condition and Degrees as 2025:HHC:16476 -4- well as undated Cheques submitted by them be also returned to them (Annexure P-4).
5. Though, after submission of representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), respondents vide notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), issued posting order of the petitioners amongst others, but petitioners again submitted representation dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), pointing out that since posting orders were not issued to them within the period prescribed in the Prospectus i.e. one month, hence the condition of bond is not applicable in their case. In nutshell, in aforesaid representation, petitioners requested respondents to cancel their posting orders and release their MBBS Degree along with undated Cheques. Besides above, they also requested for NOC, so as to relieve them from bond condition. Since needful, as prayed for in the representation, was not done by the respondents, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.
6. Precisely, the grouse/claim of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Bharat Thakur and Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners is that petitioners herein cannot be compelled to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of bonds executed by them for the reason that respondents-State failed to issue posting order of the petitioners within a 2025:HHC:16476 -5- period of one month from the date of declaration of result. While making this Court peruse Clause 6.8.2 of the Policy and Clause 11.8(ii) of the Prospectus, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners states that on account of failure on the part of respondents to issue posting order of the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, petitioners herein cannot be compelled to work in the State of Himachal Pradesh on the basis of bond furnished by them at the time of admission in the MD/MS courses.
7. While making this Court peruse Clause 6.4 of the Policy (available at page No.31 of the paper-book), Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that two months before tentative completion of Post Graduation in every Medical/Dental College, the DHS/DDHS is to conduct walk-in-interview in the concerned College and take options from all bonded candidates to serve the State, but in the instant case, no walk-in-interview in the concerned Colleges was ever conducted, rather, after receipt of representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioners, respondents straightaway vide notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) proceeded to issue posting order of the petitioners in complete violation of provisions contained in the Policy as well as Prospectus. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that though in terms of PG/Super Specialty Policy and Prospectus for the year 2021-22, petitioners herein undertook to serve the State of 2025:HHC:16476 -6- Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years after completing PG course by executing bond, but since respondents themselves failed to comply with the provisions contained in the Policy and Prospectus, inasmuch as they failed to issue posting orders of the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, Clause 6.8.2 of Policy comes in operation, which provides that in case posting orders are not issued within a period of one month, bond condition will not apply to those direct candidates in whose case Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any order for field posting within a month of their clearing the PG exam. He submitted that in the case at hand, result of MD/MS final year examination of batch 2021 was declared vide notification dated 07.03.2025, whereas posting order of the petitioners were issued on 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-5). Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that by now, it is well settled that information brochure and the admission notice have the force of law and provisions contained therein are required to be strictly complied with. He further submitted that terms and conditions of the Prospectus are equally binding upon the respondents, who have issued the same. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Gunjan Kapoor Vs. State of H.P., (1999) 1 ShimLC 246, Dr. Ravi Shankar Shandil Vs. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine 2112 and Dr. Disha Sharma Vs. State of H.P., 2014 SCC 2025:HHC:16476 -7- OnLine HP 5214, wherein it specifically came to be ruled that provisions contained in the Prospectus have the force of law.
8. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General while refuting the afore submissions made by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that no delay, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of respondents in issuing posting orders. While referring to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General submitted that petitioners herein are bound to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their having furnished the bonds to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of at least two years, including mandatory first year of field posting after completion of their Post Graduate course. He submitted that petitioners herein cannot be permitted to interpret the statutory provisions of PG/Super Specialty Policy dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-
1) to their advantage and suitability. He submitted that since petitioners were paid stipends by State Government for undergoing such Post Graduate courses in respective Government Medical Colleges of the State, coupled with the fact that they executed the bonds to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, prayer made on their behalf to relieve them from bond condition cannot be accepted.
While referring to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents and Others Vs. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 607, Mr. Anup 2025:HHC:16476 -8- Rattan, learned Advocate General strenuously argued that Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein. He also placed reliance upon judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.93 of 2024, wherein it came to be held that bond executed by the first respondent i.e. Doctor to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh would continue for complete period and he cannot wriggle out of the same by raising untenable pleas. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General further argued that plea raised by petitioners under an exceptional Clause 6.8.2 of the Policy dated 27.02.2019 is not at all sustainable because such exceptional Clause cannot supersede the bond conditions, as furnished in the shape of legal undertaking by the petitioners while undergoing the PG course. He further submitted that otherwise also, posting orders of the petitioners cannot be said to have been issued after expiry of one month. He submitted that final result of final examination was declared on 07.03.2025 as per Annexure P-3, as uploaded on the website of the Atal Medical Research University, but since 08.03.2025 and 09.03.2025 were gazetted holidays, posting order of the petitioners were issued by the Government vide notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-5). While referring to the supplementary affidavit filed by Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of respondents, submitted that some of petitioners, after being relieved 2025:HHC:16476 -9- from the concerned Heads of the Departments of the respective State Government Medical College had reported to the Directorate of Health on 10.03.2025 and thereafter, as per the provisions contained under Clause 6.4 of the Policy dated 27.02.2019, their posting orders were issued well within the stipulated period of one month. He further submitted that necessary intimation with regard to joining of some candidates was received from the concerned Colleges by Director, Health Services for their posting, being the cadre controlling authority, vide circular letters dated 10.03.2025, 11.03.2025, 12.03.2025, 13.03.2025, 15.03.2025 and 17.03.2025 and thereafter comprehensive proposal for postings of all such general duty officers together with the appointments of all such direct candidates (including the present petitioners) after completion of their Post Graduate courses was put up on file of the Administrative Department (Health) on 20.03.2025 by the Branch concerned. He submitted that file was marked by the Administrative Secretary (Health) to the Minister Incharge on 22.03.2025, who after having perused the same, marked the same to competent authority for necessary approval on 25.03.2025. He submitted that since between the period from 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025, Budget Session of H.P. Vidhan Sabha was going on and all the Government Departments, including the office of competent authority were preoccupied and busy with the said Budget Session, needful could only be done on 10.04.2025. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General 2025:HHC:16476 -10- further submitted that though there is no delay, if any, on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as issuance of posting order, but even if it is presumed that there is a delay, it is only of one or two days, which can be ignored by this Court, taking note of public interest at large. Lastly, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General submitted that since petitioners herein have done their MD/MS course at the expense of State of Himachal Pradesh, coupled with the fact that they have executed the bonds to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh, omission, if any, on the part of the respondents-department to issue posting order within prescribed period deserves to be ignored by this Court taking note of larger public interest.
9. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Abraham Patani Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 11 SCC 79, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, contended that private interest has to give way to larger public interest. While responding to plea of larger public interest raised by learned Advocate General, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, while referring to the judgment pressed into service by learned Advocate General as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Yamuna Express Industrial Development Authority Vs. Shakuntala Education and Welfare Society, (2022) 20 SCC 698, submitted that same are not applicable in the case at hand because petitioners have not laid any challenge to the policy decision of the State Government, 2025:HHC:16476 -11- rather, they are seeking enforcement of Policy decision of 2019, which has been further incorporated in the Prospectus. He submitted that since the Prospectus has the force of law, the principle of larger public interest having supremacy over private interest is not applicable in the present case, rather, stipulation in Policy decision as also the Prospectus, not only mandates the issuance of posting order within a month of declaration of result, but also consequences flowing from failure to do so.
10. I have heard the parties and gone through the record.
11. Before ascertaining the correctness of rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties, it would be apt to take note of Clause 6 of Policy, which deals with terms & conditions of bond for Post Graduate courses:
"6. Terms and conditions of Bond for Post Graduation 6.1 As the Government incurs substantive expenditure on each candidate for doing Post Graduation and also pays them full pay along with all allowances and seniority during the course, every GDO (regular/contract) who have been sponsored to pursue Post Graduation within the State in Government Medical/Dental colleges shall have to furnish a bond to serve the State for at least four years including mandatory first year of field posting after completion of their respective courses. Similarly, in case of GDOs sponsored for Post Graduation outside the State on sponsored quota seats of autonomous Institutions, as the Government pays them full pay alongwith increments during the course and they are not even serving the state during the course, every such GDO (regular) shall have to furnish a bond to serve the State for at least five years including mandatory first year of field posting after completion of their respective courses. Since the direct candidate who pursues Post Graduation within the State in Government Medical/Dental colleges on State/All India Quota stand on a different footing as they entitled to service benefits including full pay (with 2025:HHC:16476 -12- allowances and increments) and chances of regularisation to which their GDO counterparts are entitled; however, keeping in view the resources expended in their education by the government including payment of stipend, every such direct candidate shall have to furnish a bond to serve the State for at least two years including mandatory first year of field posting after completion of their respective courses. 6.2 The bond as per clause 6.1 shall be in the following form:
6.2.1 All the candidates as per clause 6.1 shall furnish a bond in the form of a legal undertaking to serve the State for prescribed period failing which the candidate shall have to pay the Rs. 40 Lacs to the State Government. The candidate shall also furnish an undated cheque from a scheduled bank amounting to Rs. 40 Lacs in the name of DHS. The DHS shall be at liberty to get the cheque encashed in event of violation of the bond conditions.
6.2.2 The candidates as per clause 6.1 shall also deposit their original bachelor degree with the DHS/DDHS (in case of GDOs) and DME (in case of direct candidates). The concerned issuing University/Institution shall be informed about such retention and the candidate shall be debarred from obtaining any degree shall be released only after duplicate degree. The original bachelor degree completion of the Bond Period or after deposition of the requisite amount and this shall be a part of the bond agreement.
6.2.3 The candidates shall also furnish undertaking as a part of bond that they shall complete the course prescribed failing which they shall be liable to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the State government for wastage of seat.
6.2.4 The prescribed format of the bond shall be as per Annexure B. 6.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of DHS/DDHS to ensure the furnishing of such documents from each GDO candidate who is being sponsored and the sole responsibility of the Principal of concerned Medical College to ensure collection of these documents at the time of admission of a direct candidate to the course. Any dereliction of duty in this end shall make the concerned liable for action.
2025:HHC:16476 -13- 6.4 The custodian of these three documents -Bond as legal undertaking, undated cheque and the original Bachelor's degree shall be DHS/DDHS (in case of GDOs) and DME (in case of direct candidates through Principals of respective colleges). Two months before the tentative completion of the Post Graduation in every Medical/Dental College, the DHS/DDHS shall conduct walk in interview in the concerned college and shall take options from all those candidates who are bonded to serve the state. Simultaneously, the DHS shall take over the custody of the documents including the Bond agreement, undated cheque and Original Bachelor degree in respect of direct candidates. The field posting orders of such candidates shall be issued by the DHS/DDHS within a month of declaration of PG results and successful clearing of the PG Exams subject to vacancy. The concerned Principals shall relieve the candidates (including GDOs and direct candidate) only after successful completion of the course with the direction to report to the DHS.
6.5 In no case, NOC will be granted for second Post Graduation course/Super Specialty course/Senior Residency to any candidate during the mandatory period of service of the State after first Post Graduation.
6.6 The following shall constitute a violation of the bond to serve the state as outlined in Clause 6.1 6.6.1 Failure to join the given field posting within 10 days of issuance of orders.
6.6.2 Putting in request for EOL/Study leave/request for NOC during the mandatory period of service of the State. 6.6.3 Putting in request for Senior Residency within the mandatory first year of field posting.
6.7 In the event of a candidate violating the terms of bond as outlined in clause 6.6, the following actions shall be initiated by the DHS:
6.7.1 The salary paid to the candidate during sponsorship shall be recovered through due process of law.
6.7.2 The bond amount shall be recovered through due process of law. The cheque submitted by the candidate as a part of bond documents shall be en-cashed.
6.7.3 Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the GDO candidate.
2025:HHC:16476 -14- 6.7.4 The original bachelor degree shall not be returned and endorsement shall be made to the concerned University thereof.
6.7.5 Cancellation of registration from the concerned Medical Council.
6.8 Exceptions: The condition of bond shall not be applicable in case of Direct candidate in the following scenarios:
6.8.1 Those direct candidates who do not choose to take any stipend during the post graduation in the state. Such candidates shall furnish such option on a prescribed affidavit before the start of course.
6.8.2 Those direct candidate in whose case the Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any orders for field postings within a month of their clearing the PG Exams.
However, the DHS/DDHS would be answerable to the Government for this lapse."
12. It is also apt to take note of Clause 11.8 of the Prospectus issued by the respondents for admission to Post Graduate courses, which reads as under:
"11.8 Exceptions: The condition of bond shall not be applicable in case of Direct candidate in the following scenarios:
(i) Those direct candidates who do not choose to take any stipend during the post graduation in the state. Such candidates shall furnish such option on a prescribed affidavit before the start of course.
(ii) Those direct candidate in whose case the Government/Director health Services, Himachal Pradesh fails to issue any orders for field postings within a month of their clearing the PG Exams. However, the Director of Health Services would be answerable to the Government for this lapse."
13. Before considering the applicability, if any, of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Policy as well as Prospectus, this Court may 2025:HHC:16476 -15- take note of the fact that there is no dispute that petitioners herein after their having cleared NEET PG Examination 2021 applied for admission in MD/MS courses in various Colleges of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Prospectus issued by respondents for the year 2021-22 for centralized counselling and admission for Postgraduate Degree (MD/MS) Courses. It is also not in dispute that petitioners herein applied as direct candidates and they were allotted seats in two colleges i.e. IGMC, Shimla and RPGMC, Tanda, respectively. It is also not in dispute that in terms of Clause 6.1 of Policy, petitioners herein, being direct candidate, furnished bonds to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for at least two years, including mandatory first year of field posting after completion of their Post Graduate course and they also submitted/deposited undated Cheques amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- as well as their MBBS Degrees with the respondents-department.
14. Perusal of Clause 6.7 of Policy, which has been reproduced hereinabove, suggests that in the event of a candidate violating the terms of bond, as outlined in Clause 6.6, respondents-department would be entitled to recover the salary paid to the candidate during sponsorship by following due process of law. Similarly, bond amount shall be also recovered by following due process of law, which may include encashment of Cheque submitted by candidate as a part of the bond document. For violation of bond, respondents-department can also initiate disciplinary proceedings against the GDO candidate, which in the 2025:HHC:16476 -16- case of petitioners may not be applicable. Most importantly, on account of violation of bond condition, respondents-department may not return original bachelor degree and it may also write to Medical Council for cancellation of registration.
15. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioners executed the bond in terms of Clause 6 of the Policy and as such, they are bound to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, but at this stage, it is pertinent to take note of "Exceptions", as provided under Clause 6.8 of Policy, which provides for situations, under which condition of bond shall not be applicable in case of direct candidates. As per Clause 6.8.1, direct candidate, who do not choose to take any stipend during the Post Graduation in the State, shall furnish such option on a prescribed affidavit before the start of course and in case, such option is exercised, he shall not be bound by condition of bond, if any, executed by him. Most importantly, Clause 6.8.2 of afore Policy clearly reveals that those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any orders for field postings within a month of their clearing the PG exams would also not be governed by the condition of bond.
16. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as came to be put forth before this Court is that though they had executed bond in terms of Clause 6 of the Policy to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years after their having completed MD/MS course, but since respondents-department, in terms of Clause 6.8.2 of Policy, failed 2025:HHC:16476 -17- to issue any order of their field posting within a month of their clearing the PG exam, condition contained in bond furnished by them cannot be made applicable.
17. Before ascertaining the correctness of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court finds it necessary to take note of the fact that terms & conditions of bond for Post Graduation courses, as per provision of PG policy, notified by the Government vide Notification dated 27.02.2019, were duly incorporated in Clause 11 of the Prospectus. Clause 11.8 of the Prospectus, as reproduced hereinabove, also provides for 'exceptions' that condition of bond will not be applicable to those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any order for filed posting within a month of their clearing the PG exam.
18. Though Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General while referring to aforesaid provision contained in Prospectus, attempted to argue that same may not be of much consequences/relevance for the reason that petitioners herein have executed bond, thereby undertaking that after their having passed MD/MS course, they shall serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, but he was unable to dispute that by now it is well stated that information brochure/admission notice have the force of law and as such, same are to be strictly complied with. Since terms & conditions of bond for Post Graduate courses, as per provision of PG Policy notified by the Government 2025:HHC:16476 -18- specifically came to be incorporated in Clause 11 of the Prospectus, learned Advocate General representing the respondents-State cannot be permitted to make a plea that provision contained in PG Policy are required to be independently enforced without there being influenced by the provisions, if any, contained in Prospectus. Though aforesaid argument made by learned Advocate General, being wholly fallacious and contrary to record, deserves outright rejection, but even if it is presumed that while ascertaining the correctness of claim, as put forth by the petitioners, this Court is only required to see the terms & conditions of the Policy. As per provision of PG Policy, petitioners are well within their rights to seek exist from bond in terms of Clause 6.8.2 of the Policy. Since terms of afore Policy were subsquently incorporated in the Prospectus, petitioners can also invoke Clause 11 of the Prospectus. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by this Court in Gunjan Kapoor's case (supra), relevant Para of which, reads as under:
"22. The Information Brochure and Admission Notice (Annexure PA), in our view have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with and no modification can be made by any authority not competent to do so according to its whims, choice and fancies. If it is made variable, we are clear in our mind that it will lead to injustice, arbitrariness and unfair results. In such a situation, our considered opinion is that time and date of receipt of the application fixed in the Prospectus/Information Brochure and Admission Notice have to be strictly adhered to. Respondent No. 9 categorically stated in his reply-affidavit that he purchased the Admission Brochure of the Respondent-College of Engineering, Kala Amb and submitted his complete application which 2025:HHC:16476 -19- statement is not correct as he himself has admitted that date for submitting the Gradation Certificate for sports was extended to him by the Counselling Committee till July 31, 1998. Thus, it is clear that his application on the last date of submission of the application form was incomplete and in violation of the conditions contained in paragraph 3.1 of the Admission Brochure and Admission Notice. Pro forma of affidavit prescribed in the Admission Form is part of the Admission form prescribed for showing that the candidate belongs to reserved category but it will not absolve Respondent No. 9 from submitting his Gradation Certificate for sportsmen from the Director of Sports concerned with his application form which is a condition mandatory in character, and separate from filing the affidavit. The application was absolutely in violation of conditions stipulated in paragraph 1.2.4 of the Admission Brochure and it ought not to have been entertained and accepted by the Respondent-College of Engineering, Kala Amb and no extension could be granted to Respondent No. 9 by the Admission/Counselling Committee for submitting his certificate after the expiry of the date prescribed under the Admission Brochure and notified in the Admission Notice. The Committee has no authority or power to violate the conditions of the Brochure and prescribe its own date for submitting the certificate by exercising some unwarranted, unqualified and unwritten discretion. Thus, relaxation given by the Counselling Committee not specifically stated in the Advertisement and Admission Brochure is held to be without authority of law. The application of Respondent No. 9 was also not in conformity with the Admission Notice Annexure-PA whereunder it is specifically stipulated that the Application Form along with all required documents must reach office of the Deputy Registrar IITT College at Kala Amb latest by 5 p.m. on 22nd July, 1998 and admittedly, he submitted his application at Chandigarh to Shri R.K. Prashar, and thus, he has violated the stipulations incorporated in the Admission Brochure and Admission Notice with immunity."
19. Similarly, in Dr. Disha Sharma's case (supra), it came to be ruled that terms & conditions of the Prospectus are binding, even on those who have issued it. Relevant Para of afore judgment, reads as under:
2025:HHC:16476 -20- "17. The terms and conditions of the prospectus are binding even on those who have issued it. (See : Punjab Engineer College, Chandigarh through its Principal v. Sanjay Gulati (1983) 3 SCC 517). A prospectus issued with regard to admissions to educational courses is a declaration to the candidates that a field for development of educational technicalities is available for exploration and that there could be a chance of success. It is a piece of information. The rules and norms contained in the prospectus are binding on the Selection Committee and the authorities and, therefore, have to be strictly followed. The binding nature of the prospectus both on the Selection Committee and the candidates applying for admission is on the basis that it is a piece of information containing the summary essence of norms and rules that guide both the Selection Committee and the candidates. After setting out the various conditions and methods of selection, if anyone of the parties is permitted to travel beyond the prescribed procedure, that would adversely affect the right of the other party. Therefore, it is necessary that the Selection Committee is to follow the procedure enumerated in various clauses of the prospectus and cannot be permitted or allowed to introduce any new element or procedure for admission to those as are contained in the prospectus."
20. In Ravi Shankar Shandil's case (supra), this Court while placing reliance on the law laid down in Gagan Deep's case, Vivek Singh Negi's case and also in Gunjan Kapoor's case (supra), reiterated that the provisions contained in the Prospectus have the force of law, if it is so, respondents cannot be permitted to raise a plea, that in any eventuality, petitioners are bound to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, after their having completed MD/MS course, on account of their having furnished bonds in terms of Clause 6 of the Policy.
2025:HHC:16476 -21-
21. Admittedly, in the case at hand, result of MD/MS exam of Batch 2021 was declared vide gazette notification dated 07.03.2025, meaning thereby, posting order of the petitioners in terms of Clause No.6.8.2 were required to be issued on or before 07.04.2025, but in the instant case, respondents vide notification dated 10.04.2025, issued posting orders of the petitioners i.e. after the expiry of one month. Though respondents attempted to justify their impugned action on the ground that since on 08.03.2025 and 09.03.2025, there were two gazetted holidays, period of one month, as provided under Clause 6.8.2 shall be deemed to have been expired on 10.04.2025, on which date, respondents had actually issued notification dated 10.04.2025, thereby issuing posting order of the petitioners. However, afore plea of the respondents being wholly misconceived, deserves outright rejection. True it is that on 08.03.2025 and 09.03.2025, there were gazetted holidays, but thereafter more than 28 days were left with respondents to issue posting order and there is nothing in the Policy, suggestive of the fact that while calculating period of one month, period of gazetted holidays, if any, shall be excluded.
22. Leaving everything aside, supplementary affidavit filed by Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, in terms of order dated 07.05.2025 reveals that result was declared by Atal Medical Research University on 07.03.2025 and same was uploaded on its website at 03:14 p.m. and thereafter some of the students, after being relieved from 2025:HHC:16476 -22- the concerned Heads of the Departments of the respective State Government Medical Colleges, reported to Director of Health on 10.03.2025, meaning thereby, factum with regard to declaration of result on 07.03.2025 was well within the knowledge of respondents on 07.03.2025, if it is so, they were otherwise required to issue posting order in terms of Clause No.6.8.2 of the Policy within thirty days from the date of declaration of result i.e. on or before 07.04.2025. As per own case of respondents, Directorate of Health, being cadre controlling authority, vide separate letters dated 10.03.2025, 11.03.2025, 12.03.2025, 13.03.2025, 15.03.2025 and 17.03.2025 received information with regard to declaration of result as well as passing of examination by the students concerned, if it is so, there was ample time with the respondents-department to issue posting orders, however, in the case at hand, comprehensive proposal for postings of all general duty officers together with the appointments of direct candidates (including the present petitioners) was put up on file of the Administrative Department (Health) on 20.03.2025 by the concerned Branch and admittedly, Administrative Secretary (Health) marked the file to Minister Incharge on 22.03.2025, who after having cleared the same, marked the same to competent authority for necessary approval on 25.03.2025. It is not understood that if a file for approval was submitted to the competent authority on 25.03.2025, then what prevented respondents from issuing posting order of the petitioners on or before 07.04.2025.
2025:HHC:16476 -23-
23. In the instant case, it is only after submission of representation by the petitioner dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), wherein they prayed to relieve them from bond condition on account of failure of respondents to issue posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, respondents vide notification dated 10.04.2025 proceeded to issue posting order. On one hand, learned Advocate General attempted to argue that there is no delay on the part of the respondents, but on the other hand, bare perusal of supplementary affidavit filed by Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, suggests that file remained pending for approval of competent authority for considerable time and delay, if any, occurred on account of ongoing Budget Session w.e.f. 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025. Since Budget Session had come to an end on 28.03.2025 and there was deadline for issuing posting order, as contained in Clause 6.8.2 of Policy, it is not understood why respondents took almost 12 days for issuing posting order after conclusion of Budget Session.
24. It clearly emerges from the reply as well as supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents that concerned department was in deep slumber and it only woke up after receipt of representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioners for their relieving and discharge from the bond condition. While referring to Clause 6.4 of the Policy, which has been reproduced hereinabove, learned Advocate General attempted to argue that field posting orders of such candidates 2025:HHC:16476 -24- shall be issued by the DHS/DDHS within a month of declaration of PG results and successful clearing of the PG exams, subject to vacancy. He submitted that though result was declared on 07.03.2025, but since successful clearing of PG exam was not in the knowledge of the respondents-department, rather, such fact came to the knowledge of the department subsequently, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while issuing posting orders dated 10.04.2025. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while referring to aforesaid provision, further attempted to interpret aforesaid condition to the advantage of State by stating that expression "successful clearing of the PG Exams" used in Clause 6.4 suggest that field posting orders of successful candidate would be issued within a period of one month of clearances given by the Colleges concerned, however, aforesaid interpretation sought to be given by learned Advocate General deserves outright rejection being totally absurd. Clause 6.4, if read in its entirety, clearly provides that field posting of such candidate shall be issued by the DHS/DDHS within a month of declaration of result and further expression "successful clearing of the PG Exams" has been purposely used to further clarify that only those candidates, who have cleared PG Examination, shall be issued posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, but certainly, it does not mean that field posting order of successful candidate shall be issued by the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of 2025:HHC:16476 -25- declaration of PG result as well as clearances given by the Colleges concerned.
25. To substantiate aforesaid reasoning given by this Court, this Court may again take assistance of Clause 6.4 of the Policy itself, which provides that two months before the tentative completion of the Post Graduation in every Medical/Dental College, the DHS/DDHS shall conduct walk-in-interview in the concerned College and shall take options from all those candidates who are bonded to serve the State. It also provides that the DHS shall take over the custody of the documents including the bond agreement, undated Cheque and original bachelor degree in respect of direct candidates. Since in terms of aforesaid provision, DHS/DDHS is required to conduct walk-in-interview, two months prior to tentative completion of Post Graduation, submission made by learned Advocate General with regard to clearances, if any, given by the concerned Colleges is wholly untenable.
26. During proceedings of the case, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners made available copy of office order dated 06.02.2025, issued by Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, thereby intimating names of PG (MD/MS) (GDO/Direct/AIQ) students batch 2021-24, of the Institution, who are likely to complete their tenure of training on the dates mentioned in the communication, enabling DHS/DDHS to issue posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result. Aforesaid factum with regard to 2025:HHC:16476 -26- notification dated 06.02.2025, as taken note hereinabove, has not been disputed by learned Advocate General.
27. During proceedings of the case, petitioners also filed application bearing CMP No.11265 of 2025, seeking therein permission to file supplementary affidavit, whereby they intended to place on record notifications dated 03rd and 04th August, 2023 and 25.08.2023. Careful perusal of aforesaid supplementary affidavit, which has not been refuted by respondents, clearly reveals that result of MD/MS final year examinations held in June 2023 was declared by the University vide notification dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure S-2). It also emerges from the aforesaid notification that though result was declared by University vide notification dated 25.08.2023, but posting order of the concerned students were issued well in advance on 03.08.2023 and 04.08.2023, on the basis of information submitted by the Colleges concerned. Since it is apparent from the record, as has been taken note hereinabove, that in past, respondents have been issuing posting orders of the candidates, much before the declaration of result to avoid further complication, explanation rendered on record by respondents for not doing the needful well within time, cannot be accepted.
28. As has been noticed hereinabove, petitioners as well as respondents-department are bound by the terms & conditions contained in the bond executed by petitioners. Respondents have placed on record copy of bond executed by petitioner No.3-Dr. Mayank, who was given 2025:HHC:16476 -27- admission in MD (Medicine) (Annexure R-1). Since bond, as came to be executed inter se person named hereinabove as well as Governor of Himachal Pradesh, who was otherwise represented by department concerned, terms & conditions contained in the bond are to be abided by both the parties. Clause 6 of bond executed by petitioner No.3 is reproduced herein below:
"6. The first party agrees to abide by the PG policy notified by the SECOND PARTY in letter and spirit and the provisions mentioned therein shall be applicable to the FIRST PARTY in to-to. AND to ensure the discharge of obligations by the FIRST PARTY as prescribed by this bond, 1. Sanjay Kumar (Guardian of the FIRST PARTY) and 2. Hari Singh Thakur (an income assesses), have agreed to act as sureties/guarantors and execute the bond as per conditions prescribed herein. The sureties/guarantors aforesaid making such payment, the above written bond shall be void and be of no effect, otherwise it shall remain in force and virtue.
PROVIDED always that the liability of the sureties/guarantors hereunder shall not be impaired or discharged by reasonable time being granted or by any forbearance, act or omission of the Government or any person authorized by them (Whether with or without the consent knowledge of the sureties) nor shall be it be necessary for the Government to sue the First Party before suing the sureties or any of them for amount due hereunder."
29. As per aforesaid clause, person executing the bond is under obligation to abide by the PG Policy notified by the second party in letter and spirit. Once in terms of afore bond, first party i.e. petitioner No.3 as well as other similarly situate persons are to abide by the PG Policy notified by the second party, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners 2025:HHC:16476 -28- that provisions contained in PG Policy are to be complied with, which also provides that in case posting orders are not issued within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, bond condition would not apply to those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any order for field posting within a month of their clearing the PG exam.
30. Since in terms of Policy, petitioners executed bond whereby they have agreed to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, after their having completed MD/MS course, they can be said to be under obligation to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for two years on account of their having furnished bond, but once Policy itself provides that in case field posting orders of such candidates are not issued within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result of PG exam, bond condition will not apply, respondents cannot be permitted to claim that in any eventuality, petitioners herein cannot wriggle out of the condition to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years after their having completed MD/MS course. Had respondents issued posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, they were justified in ignoring the claim of the petitioners, as came to be put forth vide representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), but since respondents themselves failed to declare the result within stipulated period of one month, as discussed hereinabove, they cannot be permitted to take benefit to one part of 2025:HHC:16476 -29- bond, ignoring material condition of declaring result within a period of one month. Omission, if any, on the part of respondents-department to declare result makes petitioners entitled to exit or relieve from bond.
31. No doubt, petitioners completed their MD/MS courses at the expense of State Government, but once it is not in dispute that respondents, at the time of taking admission, executed the bond, thereby undertaking to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, it cannot be said that they had no intention to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh from very beginning, rather, benefit now sought to be taken by petitioners is on account of failure on the part of the respondents to issue posting order within a period of one month. This Court is also not very much impressed with the submission made by learned Advocate General that in such like case, larger public interest is to be given weightage over private interest. Once respondents themselves while getting bond executed from the petitioners left window open for petitioners to exit from bond in one eventuality, as discussed hereinabove, it cannot be permitted to take shelter of larger public interest. In terms of Policy as well as bond executed by the petitioners, petitioners are well within their rights to seek exit or relieve from bond on account of failure of respondents to issue posting order within one month from the date of declaration of result.
32. At one hand, Policy/bond binds petitioners to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of two years, after having 2025:HHC:16476 -30- completed MD/MS course, but on the other hand, it also binds respondents-State to give posting order to petitioners as well a similarly situate persons within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result and in case posting orders are not issued, petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons are well within their rights to seek discharge from the bond. Provision contained in the Policy as well as bond cannot be only read to the advantage of respondents, rather, same are to be read in its entirety, which aso provides window to the petitioners to exit from bond in situations, as detailed in Clause 6.8.2. Otherwise also, judgment pressed into service by learned Advocate General in Abraham Patani's case (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. If the aforesaid judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that same relates to policy decision of the State Government in larger public interest. Hon'ble Apex Court while taking note of policy decision of the State Government in larger public interest, proceeded to hold that private interest has to give way to larger public interest, however, in the instant case, petitioners have never laid any challenge to the policy of the State Government, rather, they are seeking enforcement of the Policy decision of 2019, which has been further incorporated in the Prospectus. Since Policy decision itself leaves scope for petitioners to leave/exit from bond, right, if any, accrued on the part of the petitioners, on account of omission on the part of respondents to issue posting order within a period of one month from the date of 2025:HHC:16476 -31- declaration of result, cannot be permitted to be taken away in the garb of larger pubic interest.
33. In case Yamuna Express Industrial Development Authority case (supra), though it came to be ruled that larger public interest has to give way to private interest, but same has no application in the case at hand for the reason that petitioners herein are not aggrieved of any Policy decision taken by the respondents, rather, they intend to take benefit of Policy decision, which itself provides that in the event of non-issuance of posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, they shall be relieved from the bond condition. Stipulation in Policy decision as also the Prospectus not only mandates the issuance of posting order within a month of declaration of result, but also consequences flowing from failure to do so. Failure to issue posting orders within a month, relieves the bonded candidates from the rigours of condition of the bond.
34. There is a specific stipulation in 2019 Policy, as also Prospectus that process of issuing posting orders would be initiated two months before the tentative completion of Post Graduation course, coupled with the fact that in the year 2023, posting orders of the bonded candidates were issued even before the declaration of result, this Court can safely conclude that the stipulation of issuing posting orders within one month is mandatory and violation thereof cannot be condoned in the absence of any such provision incorporated in the 2019 Policy or the 2025:HHC:16476 -32- Prospectus. Similarly judgment pressed into service by learned Advocate General passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Abraham Patani's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the said judgment pertains to land acquisition for public purpose and the challenge therein was made by private players.
35. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Action of respondents inasmuch as refusing to relieve the petitioners from the condition of bond executed by them is quashed and set-aside, being in violation of Policy and terms & conditions of bond, executed by petitioners and respondents are directed to release the original MBBS Degrees to the petitioners along with undated Cheques. Needful in terms of instant judgment shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within one week.
36. Before parting, this Court wish to observe that since on account of sheer negligence and callous attitude of officers, responsible for issuing posting orders, respondents-State has lost 45 Doctors, who otherwise would have served the State of Himachal Pradesh for two years, Minister-in-Charge of Health Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against erring officials, so that mistake committed in the case at hand is not repeated again. Action, if any, taken pursuant to aforesaid 2025:HHC:16476 -33- observations made by this Court shall be placed before this Court by way of compliance affidavit, to be filed by the authority concerned within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment at hand.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)