Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 564 (UTT)

Sonali Sahi v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-12-10

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. All these writ petitions are interconnected and identical questions of facts and law are involved therein, therefore, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. All the petitioners applied to seek admission in M.B.B.S. Course against the seats reserved for State quota. Prior to 23.07.2008, tuition fee was Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum as mentioned in the prospectus for the Academic Session commencing from 2008-2009; vide Government Order dated 23.07.2008, it was provided that consessional tuition fee of Rs. 15,000/- per annum would be realized from the student taking admission against the state quota and rest of the tuition fee i.e. Rs. 1,35,000/- per annum would be paid by the State Government; student has to furnish personal bond at the time of taking admission that after completion of the M.B.B.S. course he would serve the State Government for five years in hill districts of the State; with the further stipulation that if student does not wish to serve the State for five years and does not furnish personal bond he would not be granted admission; with the further stipulation, if, after completion of the M.B.B.S. course, student fails to serve the State Government for a period of five years in hill districts, then he has to pay Rs. 30 lakhs in one go as a damage/compensation. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that none of the petitioners ever furnished bonds as required by the Government Order dated 23.07.2008 at the time of taking admission and petitioners, under duress, furnished such bonds only in 2012, therefore, petitioners cannot be asked to serve the State Government, after completion of the M.B.B.S. courses in compliance of bonds furnished by the petitioners. He further contends that Government Orders dated 23.07.2008 and 04.08.2008 are arbitrary and against the provisions of the prospectus, therefore, are liable to be quashed and consequently, impugned orders, whereby petitioners are required to serve the State Government are also liable to be quashed. Undisputedly, prospectus for the Academic Session 2008 clearly provides that tuition fee would be Rs.1,50,000/- per annum to pursue the M.B.B.S course in the State medical colleges. Undisputedly, prospectus for the Academic Session 2008 clearly provides that tuition fee would be Rs.1,50,000/- per annum to pursue the M.B.B.S course in the State medical colleges. The State Government, before granting admission to the petitioners, in other words, before commencement of Academic Session 2008 issued Government order dated 23.07.2008 making provision for the payment of concessional tuition fee with stipulations as narrated hereinbefore. Undisputedly, all the petitioners took advantage of the Government Order dated 23.07.2008 and paid concessional tuition fee of Rs.15,000/- per annum. This is true that petitioners instead of furnishing bonds then and there at the time of taking admission, executed bonds in terms of Government Order dated 23.07.2008 in the year 2012 but delay in furnishing bond may be treated as irregularity, however, same does not amount to duress and it may not save the petitioners from the clutches of the Government Order dated 23.07.2008. In my considered opinion, having taken the entire benefit of consessional tuition fee, pursuant to Government Order dated 23.07.2008, now petitioners are estopped in challenging the Government Order dated 23.07.2008. Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, has rightly pointed out that few other students have also filed different writ petitions, which were decided by a common judgment dated 03.06.2014, wherein leading writ petition was Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1224 of 2013, Dr. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and the present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 03.06.2014 passed in bunch of the writ petitions. I have carefully perused the judgment dated 03.06.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1224 of 2013, Dr. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand. Present petitions are squarely covered by the judgment dated 03.06.2014. Therefore, for the reasons discussed hereinbefore and for the reasons discussed in the judgment dated 03.06.2014 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1224 of 2013, Dr. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and other connected writ petitions, present writ petitions are disposed of. Direction issued in the judgment dated 03.06.2014 shall also be applicable for the present petitioners too. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.