Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 380 (PNJ)

Manoj Verma v. State of Haryana

2012-02-29

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of a direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to execute service bond of minimum period of 7 years or of payment of an amount of Rs. 10 lacs to the Haryana Government in lieu thereof as per Annexure C (Policy dated 10/12.03.2008) attached with the prospectus which was issued for taking admission for the year 2010 for MD/MS Course with Pt. B.D.Sharma, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’)-respondent No. 4 instead of service bond of minimum period of 7 years or of payment of Rs. 25 lacs to the Haryana Government in lieu of Policy dated 05.12.2008 appended as Annexure D with the prospectus for admission in the year 2011 to the MD/MS Course. 2. Petitioner contends that he was serving as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Chautala in the year 2010 when on the basis of the notification issued for admission to the MD/MS Course for the year 2010, applied under the in-service’ candidate category for admission to Post Graduate Degree of M.S. He got admission on 10.05.2010 and joined the course with respondent No. 4-University. After seeking admission, petitioner was called upon to execute the service bond of minimum period of 7 years or payment of an amount of Rs. 25 lacs as per the Government instructions dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P-11). Petitioner contends that the said instructions would not be applicable to him in the light of the fact that the petitioner had sought admission in the year 2010 when Policy dated 10/12.03.2008 (Annexure P-10) was a part of the prospectus and, therefore, he was bound by that instructions and accordingly, agreed to execute the service bond for 7 years or payment of an amount of Rs. 10 lacs which when was not accepted by the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. It would not be out of way to mention here that the petitioner was not being paid the salary, which he was entitled to during the period of study leave which the petitioner had availed on his selection to the Post Graduate M.S. Course being an in-service’ candidate. The entitlement of the petitioner to the salary is also clearly spelt out from the Policy dated 10/12.03.2008 (Annexure P-10). 4. The entitlement of the petitioner to the salary is also clearly spelt out from the Policy dated 10/12.03.2008 (Annexure P-10). 4. Upon notice, response has been filed by the respondents, wherein the factum that the Policy dated 10/12.03.2008 being a part of the prospectus for the year 2010 has been admitted and it has also been admitted that Policy dated 05.12.2008 was a part of the prospectus for the year 2011. The stand, which has been taken by the respondents for nonpayment of the salary to the petitioner, is that the petitioner did not execute the bond as per the Policy regarding Higher Studies for Doctors dated 05.12.2008 which, the respondents contend, was in existence prior to the issuance of the prospectus for the year 2010 and, therefore, was applicable to the petitioner and he was bound to comply with the same. Eligibility of the petitioner for the salary is not disputed except for the reason that he has not executed the bond, as required under the Policy dated 05.12.2008. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 6. The facts are not in dispute. The only question, which requires to be determined in the present case, is whether the petitioner is liable to execute a bond, as mandated vide Policy Decision dated 10/12.03.2008 (Annexure P-10), which is service bond of 7 years or of payment of an amount of Rs. 10 lacs or as per the Policy dated 05.12.2008 which requires execution of a service bond for a period of 7 years or of payment of Rs. 25 lacs to the Government of Haryana? In the light of the fact that the petitioner had taken admission in the year 2010 and had actually joined the course on 10.05.2010 as also an admitted fact that Policy dated 10/12.03.2008 was an annexure to the prospectus for the year 2010, the said prospectus would govern his terms of admission and especially when this Policy being part of the prospectus dealt with the service conditions of the petitioner during the course and thereafter, would be binding on him whereas the Policy dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) although issued prior to the issuance of the prospectus for the year 2010 but since it was not a part of the prospectus, the same cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. This conclusion of mine is in consonance with the observations/decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9221-9223 of 2010 titled as State of Punjab and another vs. Dr. Viney Kumar Khullar and others, where similar situation had arisen as in the present case. In para 9 thereof, Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “9. The prospectus notification dated 17.03.2008 requires the in-service doctors to produce NOCs. from the Director, Health & Family Welfare or the Director Medical Education & Research as the case may be before joining the course, in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular dated 13.05.1996 and any other instructions issued by the Punjab Government. What is significant is that the circular dated 30.07.2007 increasing the period of minimum service under the bond from 5 years to 10 years (and bond amount from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs) for PG courses is not mentioned or made applicable. The words “any other instruction issued by the Punjab Government” in the context of the said clause in the Prospectus cannot be interpreted as referring to any instruction increasing the burden on the candidates to secure the No Objection Certificate. A candidate should be made known about the requirements to be fulfilled by him and cannot be exposed to unknown liabilities or limitations. If the intention was to make the amendment notification dated 30.07.2007 applicable to the 2008 PG admissions, the Prospectus should have referred to that amendment circular dated 30.07.2007, while mentioning the circular dated 13.05.1996. Nothing prevented the Government from stating that the NOC should be subject to the conditions mentioned in the circular dated 13.05.1996 as amended by circular dated 30.07.2007. It should be noted that the amendment circular dated 30.07.2007 was issued after the 2007 admissions and was sought to be made applicable for the first time in respect of the 2008 admissions. Therefore, the candidates for 2008 admissions would not know about the said amendment circular dated 30.07.2007 unless it was mentioned in the Prospectus. The candidates would have bonafide proceeded on the basis that eligibility for the NOC was in terms of the government circular dated 13.05.1996. The fact that provisional NOCs had been issued to them also would have led them to believe that prima facie they were eligible to get the NOCs.” 7. The candidates would have bonafide proceeded on the basis that eligibility for the NOC was in terms of the government circular dated 13.05.1996. The fact that provisional NOCs had been issued to them also would have led them to believe that prima facie they were eligible to get the NOCs.” 7. In view of the above, the contention of the respondents with regard to the applicability of the Policy dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) to the petitioner is misplaced and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be forced to execute the service bond for a period of 7 years or of payment of Rs. 25 lacs to the Haryana Government in lieu thereof. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. 9. Respondents are directed to accept the service bond of the petitioner of minimum period of 7 years or of payment of an amount of Rs. 10 lacs to the Haryana Government in lieu thereof as per Memo No. 21/123/05-1HB-1 dated 10/12.03.2008 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner shall execute the bond within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that during the integrum, the petitioner has already executed a bond for a period of 7 years or of payment of Rs. 25 lacs, the same shall be returned by the State on submission of the fresh bond. It goes without saying that on submission of this bond, the unpaid salary of the petitioner shall be released to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks, if already not released. ---------0.B.S.0------------