Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1364 (JHR)

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-11

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to quash Clause-4 of Notification no.32 dated 20.04.2012, issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the said notification is dated 20.04.2012, it has been made effective retrospectively from the Sessions 2011-12. The said Clause relates to the payment of amount by Post Graduate students (PG for short) in case they decide to quit the course in the midst of the Sessions. 3. According to the earlier provision, in case of quitting the course before completion, the student had to pay Rs.50,000/-if the option is exercised within one year and Rs.1,00,000/-if the option is exercised after completion of one year. By the impugned notification, now the candidate, who wants to quit the course before completion, has to return the full amount of stipend alongwith 20% fine on the said amount. 4. According to the petitioners, when they had taken admission, undertaking was taken by RIMS on the basis of the earlier provision under which the candidates were liable to pay Rs.50,000/-in case they quit the course before completion of one year. However, the respondents are forcing the petitioners to pay the full amount received by them as stipend plus 20% of the amount as fine. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the notification is dated 20.04.2012, it cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect on the candidates, who had taken admission by giving undertaking in terms of the earlier provision. Since the new provision is prejudicial to the petitioners, the same cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect particularly when there is no such statutory provision or legislation to implement the same with retrospective effect. The said order is, thus, wholly illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and stating, inter alia, that at the time of taking admission, the petitioners and other candidates have given undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions and the provisions, which are applicable from time to time. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and stating, inter alia, that at the time of taking admission, the petitioners and other candidates have given undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions and the provisions, which are applicable from time to time. It has been submitted that though at the time of giving undertaking, the said notification dated 20.04.2012 was not in existent, the petitioners are bound by the provisions of the said notification in terms of their said undertaking that any rule/circular issued from time to time shall also be binding on them. 7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that though it is true that on the date, the petitioners had taken admission in P.G. Course, the said notification was not applicable, subsequently, it has been brought by notification issued by the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand dated 20.04.2012 and the same is applicable to them-and-they are liable to refund the amount of stipend and pay the prescribed fine. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the said admitted position that on the date, when the petitioners had taken admission in P.G. Course, the said Notification dated 20.04.2012 was not applicable. The subsequent notice imposing additional financial burden on the petitioners cannot be held to be justified and the petitioners cannot be forced to pay the amount for quitting the course in terms of the subsequent notification. Even if there is any such undertaking that the petitioners will abide by the terms and conditions existing and also made applicable from time to time does not bind them to bear any additional financial burden. No such term or order, which adversely affects or creates any additional financial burden, can be imposed with retrospective effect, particularly on the students, who had planned/ and taken admission in terms of the then existing provision. 9. In view of the above, the notification dated 20.04.2012 cannot be said to be reasonable so far as it provides for making the same applicable with retrospective effect and the petitioners cannot be forced to return the full amount of stipend received by them along with the fine, as mentioned in the said notification for the purpose of allowing them to quit the course in the midst of the Sessions. However, the term applicable for the said purpose on the date of admission shall be binding on the petitioners, if they quit the course in the midst of the session. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Petition disposed of.