Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had completed her M.B.B.S course in the year, 2003. After completing the said course she had participated in the competitive examination conducted by the Tamilnadu Public service Commission, in the year 20032004, for the post of Assistant Surgeon. After being selected in the said examination the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Surgeon, to work under the third respondent. As such, she had joined in service, on 6.7.2006. On her successful completion of the probation she had been regularized in service, from the date of her joining in duty, by the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicines, Chennai, vide letter, dated 17.3.2009. Thereafter, she had applied for the Postgraduate course, under the quota meant for service candidates. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been selected for the two year Diploma in Public Health Course, in the year, 2010, when she was working as an Assistant Surgeon at the Primary Health Center, Kelambakkam, under the control of the third respondent. She had joined the course, from 29.6.2010, in the second respondent Institute of Community Medicine, Madras Medical College. Based on her selection to the said course, she had been posted as a Tutor in Community Medicine, in the Department of Community Medicine, in the second respondent College, by an order passed by the first respondent, dated 15.6.2010. While pursing her course, she had been asked to handle the classes for the students studying M.B.B.S. course and other courses, including Nursing, Pharmacy and for multi-purpose health workers. For the service rendered by the petitioner she had been paid the appropriate remuneration. 4. It has been further stated that, due to her family circumstances the petitioner was not in a position to continue the Diploma in Public Health Course and therefore, she had decided to discontinue the course. Pursuant to her decision the petitioner had submitted a letter, dated 8.6.2011, to the second respondent, seeking the necessary permission to discontinue the course and for joining in service, under the third respondent. However, the second respondent had insisted that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as per Clause No.48 of the instructions given in the Post Graduate Degree Admission Prospectus 2010-2011. However, the second respondent had insisted that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as per Clause No.48 of the instructions given in the Post Graduate Degree Admission Prospectus 2010-2011. The petitioner had paid the said amount, by way of a Bank draft in the name of the Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai. However, the second respondent had instructed the petitioner, orally, to repay the stipend amount of Rs.3,79,209/-, paid to the petitioner for the period, from 29.6.2010 to 14.6.2011, even though it had been pointed out by the petitioner that the said amount had been paid to her for the service rendered by her, as a Tutor. The demand made by the second respondent asking the petitioner to repay the amount of Rs.3,79,209/-is arbitrary, as it had not been authorized by the rules and regulations applicable to the case. Thereafter, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 10.6.2011, instructing the second respondent to relieve the petitioner from the course. Based on the instructions of the first respondent, dated 10.6.2011, the second respondent had passed an order, dated 14.6.2011, enabling the petitioner to join in service, under the third respondent. As such, the petitioner had joined in service, as an Assistant Surgeon, in the Primary Health Centre, at Mamandur. In such circumstances the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the petitioner had been asked to return the stipend of Rs.3,79,209/- paid to her, for the period, from 29.6.2010 to 14.6.2011, for her act of discontinuing the Diploma in Public Health Course, during the 2010-2012 session. It had also been stated that the petitioner had joined the Post Graduate (Diploma in Public Health) Course, only on 29.6.2010. Before joining the said course she was working as an Assistant Surgeon at the Primary Health Centre, Kelambakkam, under the control of the third respondent. 6. It had also been stated that the petitioner had submitted a bond relating to the service candidates, to undergo the post graduate (Diploma in Public Health) Course, agreeing to serve the government till she attains the age of superannuation after the completion of the said course. 6. It had also been stated that the petitioner had submitted a bond relating to the service candidates, to undergo the post graduate (Diploma in Public Health) Course, agreeing to serve the government till she attains the age of superannuation after the completion of the said course. The petitioner had also agreed to serve in rural areas, under the government of Tamilnadu till she attains the age of superannuation, after she completes the post graduate course. 7. It had also been stated that, on the petitioner failing to serve under the Government of Tamilnadu till she attains the age of superannuation, a proportionate amount of the stipend received by her, during the period of her post graduate course, should be paid back in addition to the security amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR IV) Department, dated14.3.1996, is also applicable to the case of the petitioner. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner could not continue her course due to her family circumstances. Therefore, she had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, for discontinuing the course, as per Clause 48 of the instructions given in the Post Graduate Degree Admission Prospectus, for the year 2010-2011. However, the petitioner had not done anything in breach of the conditions incorporated in the bond that she had signed to continue her service, under the Government of Tamilnadu, after completion of the post graduate course and it had also been stated that the petitioner has also been willing to serve in the rural areas, if she is given such an assignment. 9. It had also been stated that the amount of Rs.3,79,209/-, paid to the petitioner, as salary, for her teaching assignments, cannot be recovered from the petitioner as there is no provision for such recovery on the ground that she had not completed the post graduate course. As such, the demand of Rs.3,79,209/-, made by the second respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the amount of Rs.3,79,209/- paid to the petitioner, as stipend, during her post graduate course, is liable to be repaid by the petitioner, as she had not completed the said course. As such, the demand of Rs.3,79,209/-, made by the second respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the amount of Rs.3,79,209/- paid to the petitioner, as stipend, during her post graduate course, is liable to be repaid by the petitioner, as she had not completed the said course. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, claiming the refund of the said amount, is devoid of merits. 11. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not liable to repay the amount of Rs.3,79,209/-received by her, as remuneration for her teaching assignments. It has not been shown by the respondents that the petitioner had agreed to repay the amount of Rs.3,79,209/-paid to her, as salary, if she does not complete the post graduate course. The bond of Rs.5,00,000/- furnished by the petitioner could be invoked only if the petitioner fails to continue her service under the Government of Tamilnadu and if she refuses to serve in rural areas. However, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had failed to serve under the Government of Tamilnadu or that she had refused to accept the assignments given to her in rural areas. Even though the petitioner had discontinued her studies due to certain family circumstances and had not completed the post graduate course, it cannot be said that the petitioner was liable to repay the amount of Rs.3,79,209/-, as directed by the second respondent, as it was the salary paid to her for her teaching assignments. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first and the second respondents to return the amount of Rs.3,79,209/- which had been recovered from the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.