Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 947 (GUJ)

KINJAL PRAHALADBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2015-09-28

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notices of Rule for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.A.R. Thacker, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, interalia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 07.08.2014, issued by respondent No.4-Dean, Government Medical College and to direct respondents Nos.2 and 3, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University and Government Medical College, respectively, to issue a Migration Certificate to the petitioner. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition, as can be garnered from the material on record, are as follows: 3.1 Initially, the petitioner had taken admission in the Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research in the Under Graduate Programme. The said institution was a self-financed institution, run by a Trust. It so happened that Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research was derecognized by the Medical Council of India. Fifty-one students of Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research filed a petition in this regard, being Special Civil Application No.9551 of 2008, interalia, with a prayer to transfer them to any recognized medical college so that their academic careers do not suffer. By judgment dated 21.08.2008, a Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to take over the responsibility of all the petitioners therein and to ensure that they are allotted to a recognized medical college. 3.2 The petitioner was one of the students, who was transferred to respondent No.3College in the 3rd year MBBS Part-II. The petitioner enrolled in the Post Graduate Programme, after the completion of the MBBS Course with respondent No.2-University. He was to join in respondent No.3-College as a Resident on 30.06.2012. This is clear from the Office Order dated 29.06.2012, issued by respondent No.4. By the said Office Order, the names of five Residents, including the petitioner, are given in a tabular form and it is stated that the said candidates have been appointed as First Year Diploma Residents in the subjects against their names. This is clear from the Office Order dated 29.06.2012, issued by respondent No.4. By the said Office Order, the names of five Residents, including the petitioner, are given in a tabular form and it is stated that the said candidates have been appointed as First Year Diploma Residents in the subjects against their names. This Office Order contains certain conditions, including Condition No.16, which states that the Residents would have to obtain permission for undergoing the Post Graduate Course according to the conditions of the Bond already executed by them at the time of admission in the First MBBS Course, and they would be required to file an undertaking to the effect that they would abide by the terms and conditions of the Bond executed at the time of admission to the MBBS Course. It was further stipulated that the validity of the Bond would be extended for the Post Graduate period, as well. 3.3 On 23.07.2012, the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.4-Dean, Government Medical College, Surat, stating that due to personal reasons, she would like to resign from the Post Graduate Programme and may be permitted to do so. The petitioner also made a request that all her original Certificates be returned, immediately. 3.4 By a letter dated 03.07.2012 (placed on record as Annexure-R-VI with the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4), the petitioner requested respondent No.4 to grant her an extension of fifteen days for the submission of the Bond. Thereafter, by another letter dated 24.07.2012, addressed to respondent No.4, the petitioner again requested respondent No.4 to return her original documents. In addition, the petitioner gave a surety that she would pay the Bond amount, as applicable, within six months. This surety letter has been endorsed by one Dr. H.M. Patel, who has himself gave a surety that the petitioner would pay the Bond amount as per Government Rules, as applicable, and the demand of the State Government. 3.5 Thereafter, respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the petitioner, stating therein, that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.85,000/- (that is Rs.75,000/-, being half of Rs.1,50,000/- which is a Bond amount, plus Rs.10,000/- towards Residency), as she had resigned midway from the Post Graduate Prorgramme. If the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, it could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. If the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, it could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 3.6 The father of the petitioner addressed a communication dated 26.05.2014 to respondent No.4, stating that the petitioner had not made any Bond agreement with Swami Vivekanand College, where she had obtained admission initially, therefore, there is no requirement of paying the Bond amount. However, an assurance was given that if any amount is required to be paid on account of the Bond, such amount would be paid. 3.7 It may be noted that in the meanwhile, the original documents of the petitioner had been returned to her by the concerned respondents. However, the Migration Certificate had not been issued. 3.8 Respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 07.08.2014 to the father of the petitioner, stating that, as she had left the course midway, as per the Government Resolution dated 08.11.1996, the petitioner was required to pay the Bond amount, as assured, for which extension of time had been granted initially for fifteen days and later on, for six months. It is stated in the said communication that till the Bond amount is not paid, the Migration Certificate of the petitioner would not be issued to her. 3.9 Aggrieved by the communication dated 07.08.2014, issued by respondent No.4, stating that the petitioner would have to pay the Bond amount in order to obtain the Migration Certificate, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Mr.Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate for Mr.S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the petitioner had initially taken admission in the Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research, which was a Self-Financed institution, where there was no condition regarding the execution of a Bond or an Agreement. The petitioner had, therefore, not signed any Agreement or Bond, nor had any amount been paid by the petitioner towards the Bond. The petitioner had, therefore, not signed any Agreement or Bond, nor had any amount been paid by the petitioner towards the Bond. 4.1 That in the office order dated 29.06.2012, whereby the petitioner was granted admission in the First Year Diploma of the Post Graduate Programme as a Resident, there is a condition at Clause No.16, to the effect that the Resident would have to obtain permission for doing the Post Graduate course according to the conditions of the Bond “already executed” by her at the time of admission in the First MBBS Course, and that the validity of the Bond would be extended for the period of Post Graduate Course also. It is contended that this condition would not apply to the petitioner, as she had never executed any Bond at the time of admission in the First MBBS Course; therefore, there is no question of extending the validity of the Bond for the period of the Post Graduate Diploma Course. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, this condition would apply only to those Residents who had executed a Bond in the First MBBS Course. As there was no requirement of executing a Bond in the Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research, it being a Self-Financed institution, and as the petitioner had not executed any Bond or paid any amount towards the Bond, Condition No.16 would not be applicable to the petitioner. 4.2 It is further submitted that the Government Resolution dated 08.11.1996, relied upon by respondent No.4 in the impugned communication dated 07.08.2014, is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as this Government Resolution refers to a Bond already executed at the time of admission to the MBBS Course. It is submitted that as per this Government Resolution as well, the validity of the Bond earlier executed, would be extended for the duration of the Post Graduate Course and if the Resident leaves the Post Graduate Course midway, 50% of the Bond amount would be recovered. The learned advocate for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that this Government Resolution cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has not executed any Bond or paid any amount towards the Bond at the initial stage when she obtained admission in the MBBS Course. The learned advocate for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that this Government Resolution cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has not executed any Bond or paid any amount towards the Bond at the initial stage when she obtained admission in the MBBS Course. There is no question of extending the validity of a Bond which has never been executed, for the duration of the Post Graduation Course. For this reason, the petitioner is not liable to pay the Bond penalty on leaving the course midway. 4.3 It is contended that the petitioner has left the Post Graduate Course within twenty-one days, therefore, the insistence on the part of the respondents in recovering the Bond amount as penalty is unjust and improper. It is further submitted that though her original documents have been returned to the petitioner, the respondents are wrongly withholding the Migration Certificate until the Bond amount is paid. As such, there is no rule based on which the Migration Certificate can be withheld from the petitioner. Respondent No.3College has no authority under the law to refuse to provide the Migration Certificate. It cannot claim to have a lien over the Migration Certificate of the petitioner, for want of the payment of the Bond amount. 4.4 Referring to the Government Resolution dated 22.10.1996, relied upon by respondent No.1 in the affidavit-in-reply filed on its behalf, a similar submission has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner, that this Government Resolution is also not applicable to the petitioner for the same reason that the petitioner has not executed any Bond or paid any amount towards the Bond while taking admission in the First MBBS Course. It is submitted that the stipulation in this Government Resolution that the Migration Certificate would not be issued if the Bond amount is not paid would, therefore, not be applicable to the petitioner. 4.5 In support of the above submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following Judgments: (1) Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2014(3) GLH 481 (2) Judgment dated 23.07.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014 (3) Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And Anr., reported in AIR 2005 Gujarat 159 5. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2014(3) GLH 481 (2) Judgment dated 23.07.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014 (3) Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And Anr., reported in AIR 2005 Gujarat 159 5. The petition has been strongly opposed by Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that initially, the petitioner had taken admission in Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research, which was a Self-Financed institution. As there was no requirement of paying any amount as Bond in the said institution, the petitioner had not paid any amount. The question of paying the Bond amount has arisen as the petitioner applied for admission in the Post Graduate Diploma Course for the academic year 2012-13, after the completion of the MBBS course. The petitioner obtained admission in the Post Graduate Diploma Course on 30.06.2012. In the Office Order dated 29.06.2012, whereby the petitioner was granted admission to the Post Graduate Course, certain conditions have been imposed. Condition No.16 is regarding the extension of the Bond executed at the time of admission in the First MBBS Course, for the duration of the Post Graduate Course. The petitioner was, therefore, made aware about the requirement of the condition regarding the Bond at this juncture. It is specifically stated in Condition No.16 that the duration of the Bond was to be extended for the Post Graduate Course as well. 5.1 It is emphatically submitted that the petitioner was very much aware of the requirement of paying the Bond amount, which is clear from her communication dated 03.07.2012, addressed to respondent No.4, asking for extension of fifteen days for such payment. Though, for some personal reasons of her own, the petitioner resigned midway though from the Post Graduate Course on 23.07.2012, she cannot escape from the fact that she is required to comply with the condition of the payment of the Bond amount, which was stipulated in the Office Order dated 29.06.2012, whereby she was granted admission in the Post Graduation Course. 5.2 It is submitted that the petitioner again addressed a letter dated 24.07.2012, to respondent No.4, giving an undertaking and an assurance that she would pay the Bond amount, if applicable, as per Rules, within six months. One Dr. 5.2 It is submitted that the petitioner again addressed a letter dated 24.07.2012, to respondent No.4, giving an undertaking and an assurance that she would pay the Bond amount, if applicable, as per Rules, within six months. One Dr. H.M. Patel has also endorsed this communication as a surety on behalf of the petitioner, undertaking that she would pay the Bond amount as per the Government Rules. The father of the petitioner has also addressed a communication dated 26.05.2014 to respondent No.4, stating that no Bond was executed by the petitioner in Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research, but if the Bond amount is required to be paid, it would be paid. 5.3 It is submitted that all these aspects make it clear that both the petitioner and her father were very well aware of the fact that the petitioner is required to pay the Bond amount upon her resignation from the Post Graduate Programme, midway. 5.4 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 08.11.1996, the penalty for leaving the course midway is, half of the amount of the Bond. Further, as per the Government Resolution dated 22.10.1996, the Migration Certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner without paying the Bond amount which is due to the State Government. It is submitted that these Government Resolutions are policy decisions of the State Government and hold the field, and are very much applicable in the case of the petitioner. The demand of the respondents for payment of the Bond amount from the petitioner is, therefore, legal and justified. The respondents cannot issue a Migration Certificate to the petitioner until the recovery of the amount due from the petitioner is made. 5.5 It is further submitted that along with the petitioner, eleven or twelve students had also been transferred to respondent No.3 College, in the same course. Out of those students, one has resigned midway and has already paid the Bond amount. The other students, who are still studying, have adhered to the conditions of the Bond. 5.6 Distinguishing the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the facts of the present case are on totally different footing than the facts of the case in Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. The other students, who are still studying, have adhered to the conditions of the Bond. 5.6 Distinguishing the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the facts of the present case are on totally different footing than the facts of the case in Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra), therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable to the present case. It is submitted that in that case, there was no rule or regulation requiring the payment of fees for retention of the original documents of the petitioner. However, in the present case, there are two Government Resolutions that hold the field and prohibit the grant of a Migration Certificate without the payment of the Bond penalty in cases where the candidate leaves the course midway. 5.7 It is next contended that the Migration Certificate is not an original document to be returned to the petitioner. In the case of Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra), the issue was regarding the return of the original documents. In the present case, the original documents have already been returned to the petitioner. There is a specific condition for the issuance of a Migration Certificate, which has to be fulfilled by the petitioner. 5.8 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that another distinction between the facts of the case relied upon by the petitioner and the present case is that, the petitioner herein was very much aware of the condition of the Bond even when she took admission in the Post Graduate Course, as the said condition has been stipulated in the letter of admission. For this reason, she has sought extension of time to pay the Bond amount on various occasions. Such were not the facts in the case of Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra). 5.9 It is further submitted that the judgment dated 23.07.2014, passed in Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014, would also not be applicable as, in that case, this Court has followed the judgment in Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra). 5.10 Distinguishing the judgment in the case of Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And Anr. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra). 5.10 Distinguishing the judgment in the case of Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And Anr. (supra), the learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that, the said case was for the payment of fees regarding the withholding of the original mark-sheet of the petitioner therein, and the insistence on the part of the Institution to pay the entire fees for the Four Years' course, upon the cancellation of the admission. In that case, the demand was cancelled as the petitioner could not pay the fees. The facts of that case are on a different footing, therefore, the said judgment would not come to the aid of the petitioner. 5.11 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court, from the original record, the application form filled in by the petitioner upon her enrollment in the Post Graduate Diploma Course, wherein the petitioner has stated that she has paid the Bond of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is submitted that this shows the conduct of the petitioner, who has admittedly not paid any Bond amount but has wrongly stated so. On one hand, the petitioner is giving incorrect details regarding the Bond amount in the application and on the other hand she is seeking extension of time to pay the said amount. 5.12 On the basis of the above submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has forcibly submitted that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief claimed, therefore, the petition be rejected. 6. Mr.A.R. Thacker, learned advocate for respondent No.2, submits that he adopts the arguments advanced by Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader and supports the stand of the State Government. 7. By making submissions in rejoinder, Mr.Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner, has reiterated the submissions advanced earlier, while emphasising that there is no rule or authority supporting the stand of the State Government and respondent No.3College, in retaining the Migration Certificate of the petitioner. 7.1 It is submitted that, as the original Certificates of the petitioner have already been returned to her, there cannot be any impediment in issuing the Migration Certificate. It is further submitted that if the condition of the Bond was imperative, the respondents ought to have made the petitioner execute the Bond. 7.1 It is submitted that, as the original Certificates of the petitioner have already been returned to her, there cannot be any impediment in issuing the Migration Certificate. It is further submitted that if the condition of the Bond was imperative, the respondents ought to have made the petitioner execute the Bond. 7.2 Regarding the application form filled up by the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that the “bond given of Rs.1,50,000/- ”, it is submitted, upon taking oral instructions from the petitioner, that according to the petitioner, she was told to fill in the form in that manner by one of the officers of respondent No.3College. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and in great detail, perused the averments made in the petition and other pleadings, as well as the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner initially took admission in the MBBS Course in Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research, there was no condition or requirement regarding the execution of a Bond, or demand of any amount towards a Bond, as the said Institution was a Self-Financed one. As Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research came to be derecognised by the Medical Council of India, fifty-one students studying therein approached this Court, by filing Special Civil Application No.9551 of 2008, as already stated hereinabove. By judgment dated 21.08.2008, passed in the said petition, the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to take over the responsibility of the said students and to ensure that they are allotted to a recognised medical college so that their studies do not suffer. In the above context, the petitioner was transferred to respondent No.3 Government Medical College, Surat, in 3rd year MBBS Part-II. Upon completion of the MBBS Course, the petitioner took admission in the Post Graduate Diploma Course for the Academic Year 2012-13. The Office Order dated 29.06.2012, is a relevant document, stating that the petitioner has been appointed as a First Year Diploma Resident in the Post Graduate Diploma Course. It is mentioned in the said Office Order that the petitioner would have to join the course on 30.06.2012. The Office Order contains 18 conditions. The Office Order dated 29.06.2012, is a relevant document, stating that the petitioner has been appointed as a First Year Diploma Resident in the Post Graduate Diploma Course. It is mentioned in the said Office Order that the petitioner would have to join the course on 30.06.2012. The Office Order contains 18 conditions. Condition No.16 is relevant and is reproduced herein-below:- “(16) They will also have to obtain permission for doing postgraduate according to the condition of the bond already executed by them at the time of admission in 1st M.B.B.S. Course and an undertaking to the effect that they shall abide by the terms and conditions of agreement, bond etc. executed at the time of admission to MBBS course and this validity shall be extended for the period of postgraduate also, in the forms provided to you by College Office.” 10. As per this condition, the validity of the Bond executed at the time of admission in the first MBBS Course would be extended for the duration of the Post Graduate Course. Meaning thereby, that for the Post Graduate Course, there is a requirement of the payment of the Bond amount. This requirement was known to the petitioner. 11. For personal reasons, the petitioner thought it fit to resign from the Post Graduate Diploma Course and her Residency. She addressed a letter dated 23.07.2012 to respondent No.4, stating her desire to resign and requesting for permission and approval to do so. By the said communication, the petitioner further requested respondent No.4 to return all her original Certificates. There is no dispute regarding the return of the original documents of the petitioner, as they have already been returned. The bone of contention is the issuance of the Migration Certificate by respondents Nos.2 and 3, for which the said respondents are insisting on the payment of the Bond penalty, considering that the petitioner resigned midway from the Post Graduate Programme. 12. From the letter dated 03.07.2012, addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.4, it is clear that the petitioner was very well aware of the requirement of paying the Bond amount. By the said communication, the petitioner has requested for an extended period of fifteen days to do the needful. The father of the petitioner has also undertaken to pay the Bond amount, if required by Government Rules, vide his letter dated 26.05.2014, addressed to respondent No.4. 13. By the said communication, the petitioner has requested for an extended period of fifteen days to do the needful. The father of the petitioner has also undertaken to pay the Bond amount, if required by Government Rules, vide his letter dated 26.05.2014, addressed to respondent No.4. 13. The petitioner has, thereafter, addressed letter dated 24.07.2012 to respondent No.4, undertaking to pay the Bond amount and has given an assurance that the said amount would be paid within six months. One Dr.H.M. Patel has endorsed the said letter and given a surety that the petitioner would pay the Bond amount, as per Government rules. In the communication dated 30.06.2012, (annexed as Annexure-R-I to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4), which is regarding the reshuffling interview of the petitioner, there is a condition at Serial No.6 which states as follows: “(i) That you will have to execute a bond of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand) OR difference of the amount of the bond executed by him/her at the time of admission in First M.B.B.S Course to serve the Government in rural areas for a period of three years after completion of their Post-Graduate course/studies. (ii) Students who are appointed as a First Year Resident by the college shall be required to produce a Certificate duly stamped and signed as an indication of having executed the requisite bond as stated above. (iii) Students from the Universities other than South Gujarat University are also required to execute bond to the effect stated above, failing which the admission of such students will be liable to be cancelled.” 14. From the above, it is amply clear that the petitioner was not oblivious to the requirement of paying the Bond amount and was, therefore, very well aware that her resignation midway through the Post Graduate Course would entail the liability of the payment of the Bond penalty. The aspect that Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research, the Self-Financed institution where the petitioner had initially obtained admission in the MBBS Course, had not imposed a condition regarding the execution of a Bond, does not mean that this requirement, which is a condition precedent for admission in the Post Graduate Course of the Government Medical College, is liable to be waived in the case of the petitioner. 15. 15. The Rules and Regulations of the Self-Financed institution in which the petitioner initially obtained admission in the Under Graduate Course cannot be superimposed upon the Government Medical College in which the petitioner has willingly and knowingly taken admission in the Post Graduate Course, in the Academic Year 2012-13. The Office Order dated 29.06.2012, granting admission to the petitioner, as well as the communication dated 30.06.2012, regarding the reshuffling interview of the petitioner, very clearly stipulate the condition regarding the Bond, in order to gain admission in the Post Graduate Diploma Course of respondent No.3-Institution. The petitioner would have to fulfill the conditions, rules and regulations applicable to the Institution where she was studying at the time she resigned and cannot claim any relaxation due to the lack of such rules and regulations in the Self-Financed Institution where she had initially got admission in the MBBS Course. 16. Further, the Government Resolution dated 08.11.1996, clearly stipulates that the Bond executed at the stage of the MBBS Course would be extended for the duration for the Post Graduate Course and if a candidate undergoing the Post Graduate Course leaves the course midway he, or she, would be liable to pay 50% of the Bond amount. As stated in the letter dated 07.08.2012 issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, the petitioner would have to pay 50% of the Bond amount of Rs.1,50,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- towards Residency, for leaving the Post Graduate Course midway, as per Government Resolution dated 08.11.1996. The total amount liable to be paid by the petitioner is Rs.85,000/-. 17. In the letter dated 30.06.2012 regarding the reshuffling interview, the amount of Rs.75,000/- towards the Bond money is clearly indicated. The admission of the petitioner was, therefore, governed by Condition No.16 in the Office order dated 29.06.2012 and the Communication dated 30.06.2012 (regarding reshuffling interview) as well as the Government Resolutions dated 08.11.1996 and 22.10.1996. 18. The specific grievance of the petitioner is regarding the non-issuance of the Migration Certificate to her. The case of the petitioner is that the concerned respondents ought to issue the Migration Certificate without insisting for the payment of the Bond penalty. This stand, in the view of this Court, is highly untenable, as the respondents are precluded from doing so by the Government Resolution dated 22.10.1996. The case of the petitioner is that the concerned respondents ought to issue the Migration Certificate without insisting for the payment of the Bond penalty. This stand, in the view of this Court, is highly untenable, as the respondents are precluded from doing so by the Government Resolution dated 22.10.1996. This Government Resolution specifically states that the Migration Certificate would not be issued in favour of a candidate who leaves the Post Graduate Course halfway, until the Bond penalty is paid. 19. The learned advocate for the petitioner has repeatedly argued that when the petitioner has not executed any Bond or paid any amount while getting admission in the MBBS Course, such Bond cannot be extended to the Post Graduate Course. As has already been stated earlier, the Rules of Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research may not have required the execution of a Bond or payment of a Bond amount. However, the Rules, or the lack of them in the Self-Financed Institution, cannot be superimposed upon respondent No.3 Government Medical College in which the petitioner was admitted for the Post Graduate Course, and which is specifically governed by the above conditions and Government Resolutions regarding the payment of the Bond amount. 20. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was very well aware of the requirement of the payment of the Bond amount at the time of taking admission in the Post Graduate Course. She has also undertaken to pay the Bond amount by asking for extension of time and giving assurances that she would pay the amount. When there are specific rules/conditions/Government Resolutions requiring the payment of the Bond amount in respondent No.3-Institution and prohibiting the issuance of a Migration Certificate until the Bond amount has been paid, it cannot be said that the respondents are acting in an unjust or arbitrary manner in not issuing Migration Certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner, herself, has not fulfilled the requirement of the Rules. After being fully aware of the requirement of paying the Bond amount, asking for extension of time to do so and giving repeated assurances that she would pay, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a divergent stand now. 21. It may be noted that the Government Resolutions dated 08.11.1996 and 22.10.1996 are in the nature of executive instructions that hold the field. They are very much applicable to the case of the petitioner. 21. It may be noted that the Government Resolutions dated 08.11.1996 and 22.10.1996 are in the nature of executive instructions that hold the field. They are very much applicable to the case of the petitioner. The requirement of paying the Bond amount is raised in the Post Graduate Course, and not the MBBS Course, therefore, the insistence on the part of the learned advocate for the petitioner that merely because no amount was paid as Bond money in the Self-Financed Institution it is not required to be paid in respondent No.3 Government Institution, is a contradiction in terms and cannot be accepted. Different institutions are governed by different rules and once the petitioner has consciously taken admission in respondent No.3College, she cannot escape the rigours of the rules that are applicable to that institution. 22. This brings us to the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 23. Heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra). That was a case wherein the petitioner of that petition was admitted to a college affiliated to the Saurashtra University. After obtaining admission, handing over his original Certificates and paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards fees for the Academic Year 2013-14, the petitioner therein learnt that the course in which he had enrolled was not recognised by the Medical Council of India. He, therefore, wrote to the respondent-College, stating that his admission be treated as cancelled and asked for the return of his original Certificates and the amount paid by him towards fees. By that time, the petitioner therein had appeared in an examination conducted by the Manipal University and had been called for counselling. As he would be unable to participate in the counselling at Manipal University without his original documents, the petitioner had approached this Court. The respondent-College was demanding the entire fees for remaining of the course of the petitioner in lieu of return of the documents. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka And Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 , this Court held that the Institution had not evolved any mechanism to recover the amount in the form of Bond, or bank guarantee, to ensure the recovery for the entire course, when the student leaves the course, midway. Vs. State of Karnataka And Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 , this Court held that the Institution had not evolved any mechanism to recover the amount in the form of Bond, or bank guarantee, to ensure the recovery for the entire course, when the student leaves the course, midway. It was found that the respondent-College had no automatic right to recover fees for the entire course and the Rules or guidelines of the UGC did not provide for the retention of the documents at the time of cancellation of the admission. In light of such facts, this Court issued a direction to the respondent-College to return the original documents of the petitioner, while leaving it open to the respondent-College to avail of the appropriate remedy to recover the loss which it might have sustained. 24. The facts on which the present petitioner has approached this Court are entirely different. In the present case, there are specific conditions and two Government Resolutions that mandate the payment of the Bond penalty when a student leaves the Post Graduate Course, midway. This condition is stipulated not only in the admission letter dated 29.06.2012 but also in the letter dated 30.06.2012, regarding the reshuffling interview. The said Government Resolutions govern the issue. It is provided in the said Government Resolutions that a candidate leaving the Post Graduate Course midway is required to pay the Bond penalty and till such time that it is not paid, the Migration Certificate cannot be issued. 25. In Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra), the facts were that no mechanism had been evolved and no rules or regulations existed for the retaining of the documents of the petitioner therein. The significant difference in the present case is that there is a mechanism in place, there are conditions, rules, regulations and Government Resolutions, governing the field, that are applicable to the specific case of the petitioner. The judgment in Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (supra), though relevant on the facts of that case, cannot come to the aid of the present petitioner in the present case. Similarly, the judgment dated 23.07.2014, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014, following the above judgment, would also not be applicable. 26. On the same ground, the judgment in Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Similarly, the judgment dated 23.07.2014, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014, following the above judgment, would also not be applicable. 26. On the same ground, the judgment in Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And Anr.(supra), would not render much help to the petitioner, as this Court has held that the insistence on the part of the respondents therein to make the payment of Rs.1,64,000/- towards four years' fees was unjustified and contrary to the Rules. In the present case, no action of the respondents can be said to be contrary to the existing rules, regulations and Government Resolutions, therefore, this judgment would not be applicable in the present case. 27. In the present case, the conduct of the petitioner is also required to be noticed. In the application form filled in by the petitioner for the Post Graduate Course, it is stated in column No.(2) “P.G. Bond : Bond given of Rs.1,50,000/-”, whereas it is the case of the petitioner, herself, that no Bond amount has been paid. On one hand, the petitioner is falsely stating in the application form that she had given Rs.1,50,000/- as the Bond amount and on the other hand, the petitioner is herself asking for extension of time to pay the Bond amount, vide her communications dated 03.07.2012 and 24.07.2012, in addition to the communication dated 27.05.2014 by the father of the petitioner. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, upon instructions, that the officers of the respondent-College asked the petitioner to fill up the form in the manner as has been done, is unconvincing. 28. Be that as it may, the cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner have failed to persuade the Court regarding the veracity or merit of the case put up by the petitioner. The demand of the respondent authorities for the payment of the Bond penalty is perfectly justified and legitimate. 29. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition fails and is rejected. 30. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.