ORDER : Petitioners, now the practising Physicians, who earlier having availed the Government Medical Seats, had joined their Post Graduate Degree/Post Graduate Diploma courses in Clinical/Non-clinical subjects, in the academic years 2015 and 2016. After accomplishing the said degree/diploma course in the year 2018, they have secured the Provisional Degree Certificates from the Respondent-University, awaiting the ensuing Convocation Ceremony. They have knocked at the doors of this Writ Court assailing the Notification bearing No.DME/PGS/12/2018-19 dated 28.09.2018, issued by the Respondent-Director of Medical Education whereby, amongst others, they are asked to "mandatorily attend Counselling" for the purpose of deploying their services to the Government for the benefit of public at large. 2. The impugned notification is reproduced verbatim and in its entirety and that the same shall be hereafter referred to as the “Counselling Notification”: DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore – 560009 …………………………………………………………………………… DME/PGS/12/2018-19 Date:28.09.2018 Counselling for the post of Senior Residents/Tutors/ Specialist for the Candidates completed Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in the year 2018 under RGUHS, Bangalore Following candidates mandatorily attend Counselling: 1. The candidates admitted under All India Quota 2. The candidates admitted under State Quota Seats in all Government Medical Colleges in the year 2015 in case of Degree and in the year 2016 for Diploma. 3. The candidates admitted under Government quota seats in Private Medical colleges in 2015 in case of Degree and 2016 in case of Diploma. 4. The candidates who have completed Post graduate Degree/Diploma in the year 2018 under RGUHS, Bangalore and collected documents from respective Medical colleges after submitting affidavit of serving one year service for the Government of Karnataka must attend the counselling. Note: The candidates who have already served one year of rural service after completion of MBBS are exempted from attending the counselling. Documents to be Produced at the time of counselling: 1. Allotment letter issued by KEA/MCC. 2. Marks Cards of PG Degree/Diploma Course issued by RGUHS. 3. Degree Certificate issued by RGUHS. 4. Medical Council Registration Certificate. Venue Karnataka Examination Authority, Sampige Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560012. Date: 16th & 17th Oct 2018. Time: 09.30 AM. MD/MS Clinical Departments 16th Oct 2018, 10.00 AM onwards. MD/MS Pre and Para Clinical Departments Diploma Holders 16th Oct 2018, 1.00 PM onwards. 3. After service of notice, the Respondent-State and the Director of Medical Education have entered appearance through the learned Addl. Date: 16th & 17th Oct 2018. Time: 09.30 AM. MD/MS Clinical Departments 16th Oct 2018, 10.00 AM onwards. MD/MS Pre and Para Clinical Departments Diploma Holders 16th Oct 2018, 1.00 PM onwards. 3. After service of notice, the Respondent-State and the Director of Medical Education have entered appearance through the learned Addl. Advocate General Shri A.S. Ponnanna, and the Respondent-University is represented by its Senior Panel Counsel Shri N.K. Ramesh. The answering Respondents having filed the Statement of Objections in other connected matters, have adopted the same in these matters too, their fact matrix and the contentions arising therefrom being substantially the same. In view of some further developments namely, the issuance of allotment letters to a few petitioners, postcounselling, the Writ Petitions have been amended with the leave of the Court and thereby, additional grounds have been taken up by filing the amended pleadings. 4. Shri A.S. Ponnanna appearing for the Respondent-State raised the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions in the absence of a “choate cause of action” stating that it is open to the petitioners not to attend the counselling, notwithstanding the compulsive text of the impugned Notification. This stand of the State may not be correct inasmuch as, non-participation in the counselling in question may result into invocation of default clause stipulated in the duly stamped Bond that has incorporated the undertaking given by the candidates in terms of certain Rules [Rule position is being discussed infra], as rightly contended by the petitioners’ side. That being so, there is prima facie a choate cause of action since there is an apprehended legal injury, if not the actual. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that the impugned Notification calling upon them to "mandatorily attend Counselling" is apparently under the provisions of the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 (hereafter "2012 Act"), whose operation has been already stayed by this Court vide ad interim order dated 06.10.2015 in W.P.No.40566/2015 and other connected matters and therefore, the same is liable to be struck down; the nexus between impugned Counselling Notification and the 2012 Act is established by the text of the Government Order No.HFW/241/MSF 2018, Bangalore dated 4.08.2018, which refers to the said Act and further, the Letter of Allotment dated 03.11.2018 issued to one of the petitioners, post-counselling, in turn refers to the said Government Order. 6. The learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Ponnanna, refuting the above contention submits that although the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 unmindfully mentions about the 2012 Act, such an error cannot be blown out of proportion; such an inadvertent reference to the said Act even otherwise pales into insignificance since the impugned Counselling Notification having been issued in terms of the provisions of Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for selection and admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental degree and diploma courses Rules, 2006 can stand on its own feet inasmuch as almost all the petitioners have executed a duly Stamped Bond incorporating the undertaking to serve the Government for a period of three years and the breach thereof penalizes the defaulter. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners secondly contended that the individual Bonds have been executed by almost all the petitioners barring a few, under the coercion inasmuch as but for their execution on the spot of and at the time of admission to the courses in question, they could not have secured the allotment of Government seats; the act of the Respondent-Director of Medical Education in enforcing the undertaking given through these Bonds amounts to State practising “bonded labour” and therefore, is violative of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Ponnanna per contra submits that the 2006 Rules are promulgated by the Government under section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984; these Rules having been published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 08.12.2006 are in force since more than a decade; sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 mandates furnishing of undertaking by the candidates who avail the Government seats for Post Graduate courses; the petitioners having taken the benefit thereunder and after furnishing the undertaking in terms thereof are precluded from taking the plea of coercion as a ground, for now avoiding the obligation. 9. Shri Ponnanna further submits that the petitioners were not minor children nor were under any legal disability, when they being already graduates with a good academic record, had knowledgeably and voluntarily executed the Bond. 9. Shri Ponnanna further submits that the petitioners were not minor children nor were under any legal disability, when they being already graduates with a good academic record, had knowledgeably and voluntarily executed the Bond. He also states that it is unconscionable on the part of the petitioners to take up such a stand for assailing the Counselling Notification inasmuch as had they not availed the Government seats, that too at comparatively concessional rates of fees, the said seats would have eventually gone to other deserving candidates who would have scrupulously abided by such undertaking and thus, the culpable conduct of the petitioners in not adhering to the statutory undertaking disentitles them to any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction. He hastens to add that the petitioners are estopped from approbating and reprobating. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners thirdly contended that the impugned Counselling Notification is selectively discriminatory inasmuch as all other candidates who have availed Government seats in all the preceding years having furnished the undertaking like the petitioners herein, have been left to go free whereas, it is only the candidates admitted under State Quota Seats for the degree course in the year 2015 and for the diploma course in the year 2016 like the petitioners alone have been singled out for a differential treatment with no justification whatsoever and therefore, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned action is otherwise also unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as had the previous batches too been called for the counselling, the period that the petitioners are expected to serve, would have been proportionately reduced because of eventual sharing and this aspect of the matter having not been adverted to by the concerned, the impugned Counselling Notification is vitiated by the vice of non-application of mind. 11. The learned Addl. 11. The learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Ponnanna per contra submits that the candidates of other batches of the yester years having scattered away, it is not advisable to defer the present counselling till after they are identified and drawn for compulsory service; when the undertaking is being enforced in terms of the Bond, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that there is discrimination, since the undertaking given by the candidates of yester years does not lapse by the run of time and a decision would be taken for summoning them to serve the public under the compulsive Bonds, in due course. He has also produced some material to show that, some effort was earlier made in this regard. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners fourthly contended that some of the petitioners with intent to pursue certain specialty courses have been studying to take up the ensuing examinations which are scheduled to be held by the National Board of Examinations in the second half of December 2018 and if they are forced to attend the counselling, the same would disrupt their endeavor to make value addition, which in turn could affect their career advancement and therefore, they are entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petitions. They contend that this aspect of the matter ought to have been thought of by the contesting respondents. 13. The learned Addl. Advocate General per contra submits that the material particulars as to which of the petitioners are preparing for what examinations are lacking in the pleadings; normally, the persons who furnish a statutory undertaking cannot seek the deferring of its discharge in the absence of enabling provision in the 2006 Rules; in any circumstance, such petitioners could have made a representation to the concerned for the consideration of their version and that no explanation is offered for not making the same; if the petitioners make such a representation subject to the assurance that after the accomplishment of the intended value addition, they will serve the public, there would be no difficulty for considering such individual cases for deferment, in accordance with law. 14. 14. Fifthly, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that through the impugned counselling, petitioners are required to serve in the posts of senior residents/tutors/specialists and the present incumbents of these posts are drawing a handsome salary in the prescribed pay scales whereas, the respondents hold out a paltry sum of Rs.45,000/- per month as the monthly stipend and therefore, the same constitutes begar as proscribed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India and therefore, if the challenge to the Counselling Notification were to be held sustainable, the petitioners should be directed to be granted the salary in the pay scales on par with regular incumbents of the said posts, on the principle of remunerative equality. 15. The learned Addl. Advocate General per contra submits that the candidates availing the government seats pay paltry sums of money as the fees prescribed for the courses compared to the general fee structure in other institutions; a huge amount of money is invested by the State in these candidates on the assurance that they would serve the public for a minimum period of three years and that the State itself on its own has fixed a monthly stipend of Rs.45,000/-, taking into consideration all relevant factors; the counselled candidates are not the permanent appointees/regular recruits to the posts in which they are now being asked to work and therefore, they cannot equate themselves with the regular recruits whose appointment is preceded by a due selection process; thus, their claim for ‘Remunerative Equality’ is misconceived. 16. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the issue of procedural infirmity in the counselling mandated under the impugned Counselling Notification contending that the exercise in question does not conform to norms, leaving much scope for abuse of discretion in allotting the posts/places to the candidates; if at all the challenge in principle were to fail, the counselling body has to prepare a merit list of all the candidates and the allotment should be on the basis of comparative merits of the candidates; in the absence of norm ensuring fairness, the petitioners cannot be compelled to undergo counselling, since it amounts to subjecting the citizens to arbitrary and whimsical action of the State, which offends the soul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. The learned Addl. 17. The learned Addl. Advocate General per contra submits that there is no abuse potential in the counselling in question; since the 2nd respondent-Director of Medical Education is a ‘High Public Authority’ under whose supervision, the counselling takes place, there is no scope for the argument of abuse; if at all there is any individual grievances of the candidates in this regard, the same would be looked into by the respondents 1 and 2 and that even otherwise, the aggrieved has a remedy before the Writ Court. He also submits that a State action cannot be invalidated only on the ground of possible misuse, especially when the aggrieved has a legal remedy. 18. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Advocate General Shri A.S. Ponnanna, appreciably assisted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate Smt. Pramodhini Kishan; I have also heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Respondent-University Shri N.K. Ramesh. I have perused the Petition Papers. 18 A. Recruitment and retention of rural health care professionals has been a big challenge not only in India but in other advanced countries as well. The shortage of Health profession work force is exacerbated in rural areas where the communities struggle to attract and keep well trained clinicians. Despite medical school initiatives and State Policies to train rural physicians, the rural India continues to face greater shortage of health professionals. Health care delivery has been a challenging task in rural locations inter alia because the patients tend to be poorer, less literate and not well-insured than their urban counterparts. Presumably, with this background, the Government of Karnataka has promulgated under section 14 (1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereafter "1984 Act"), The Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for selection and admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental degree and diploma courses Rules, 2006 (hereafter "2006 Rules"). 19. Sub-rules (5), (6) & (7) of Rule 15 of the aforesaid 2006 Rules which are relevant to the adjudication of this case, read as under: "(5) Candidates selecting Government Colleges and Government seats in Private colleges (under concession fee) for Post Graduate courses shall furnish an undertaking that he will serve the Government for a minimum period of three years after completion of the course, if Government desires. (6) Candidates who avail 100% tuition fee reimbursement from the Government shall furnish an undertaking that he will serve the Government for a minimum period of five years, if Government desires. (7) A penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- degree for Post Graduate Degree and Rs.25,00,000/- for Post Graduate Diploma shall be levied in case the candidates fail to serve the Government after completion of the course as per the undertaking." The 2006 Rules having been brought into force with effect from 08.12.2006 have undergone amendment vide Notification No.HFW 334 RGU 2012 dated 23.11.2013. The penalty under sub-rule (7) has been enhanced to Rs.50 lakh & Rs.25 lakh. In terms of sub-Rule (5) above, the candidates like the petitioners have availed the Government Seats in PG Degree and PG Diploma courses in Medical and Dental Sciences in Government Colleges or Private Colleges as the case may be, by furnishing the undertaking to serve the Government for a minimum period of three years by executing a duly stamped Bond. 20. The Government of Karnataka in association with Karnataka Examinations Authority has been preparing, publishing and web-hosting the brochure called Information Bulletin for Admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Medical & Dental courses for the respective academic years. The one that relates to 2015-16 is relevant for our consideration. Paragraphs 11.5, 11.6 and 11.7 at Page 40 of this brochure read as under: "11.5 Candidates selecting Government Colleges & Government seats in Private colleges (under concession fee) for Post Graduate courses shall furnish an undertaking that he/she will serve the Government for a minimum period of 3 years after completion of the course, if Government desires. 11.6 Candidates who avail 100% tuition fee reimbursement from the Government shall furnish an undertaking that he/she will serve the Government for a minimum period of 5 years, if Government desires. 11.7 In case of candidate selecting Government college & Government seats in private college, the candidate shall serve the Government Health & family welfare department in Government hospitals or in Government colleges if such speciality facilities are not available in Health & Family Welfare department for a minimum period as specified in 11.5 & 11.6. failing to comply with the conditions given as per undertaking then he/she shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) for Degree and Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) in case of diploma to the Government." 21. failing to comply with the conditions given as per undertaking then he/she shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) for Degree and Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) in case of diploma to the Government." 21. All the petitioners having availed the Government Seats and almost all of them having furnished the undertaking in terms of Rule 15 (5) of the 2006 Rules by executing the duly stamped Bond without any demur, have completed their respective courses. A copy of Bond incorporating the undertaking given by the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.45738/2018 in terms of Rule 15 (5) at the time of admission to the course in question is reproduced as a sample hereunder: “OBLIGATION BOND DATED : 06/06/2015 1. Dr. Kalasapur Arjun Subash S/o. K L Subhash aged 29 (Twenty Nine) years, residing at #38, 2nd Main, Basappa Layout,……….Extension, Bangalore 560019 being a candidate with admission ticket no CD1042160 have selected a medical seat for post graduation Degree/Diploma)of Three years course out of my own volition in (subject) Pharamacology At Bangalore Medical College, & Research Institute Bangalore (vide Admission Order dated (05.06.2015) do hereby STATE AGREE AND UNDERTAKE as hereunder: I. (a) I am aware of the intent and content of Rule 15 of the Karnataka conduct of Entrance Test for selection and admission to Post Graduate Medical Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules 2006 as amended upto date. (b) Rule 15(5) of the above Rules states that candidate selecting Government Colleges and Government seats in private Colleges under concession fee for post graduate course shall furnish an Undertaking that he will serve the Government for a minimum period of 3(three) years after completion of the course, if Government desire. (c) Rule 15(6) of the above Rules states that candidate who avails 100 percent tuition fee reimbursement from the government shall furnish an Undertaking that he will serve the Government for a minimum period of 5(five) years if government desires. (d) Rule 15(7) of the above Rules states that a penalty of Rupees. Fifty Lakhs for Degree and Rupees. Twenty Five Lakhs for Diploma in lumpsum shall be levied in case the candidate fails to serve the Government after completion of the course as per the undertaking as per Rule 15(5) and Rule 15(6) of the above Rules. (d) Rule 15(7) of the above Rules states that a penalty of Rupees. Fifty Lakhs for Degree and Rupees. Twenty Five Lakhs for Diploma in lumpsum shall be levied in case the candidate fails to serve the Government after completion of the course as per the undertaking as per Rule 15(5) and Rule 15(6) of the above Rules. (e) I hereby unequivocally AGREE and UNDERTAKE to abide by the terms of the above Rules 15(5)(6) and (7) as applicable to me. I do hereby AGREE and UNDERTAKE that I will not lay any claim to provide me a post and completion of the above course befitting to my specialized Degree/diploma and I will serve in any post shown to me by the Government without reserving any right in that regard. I do hereby AGREE AND UNDERTAKE that incase I come in the category of candidates who have completed MMBS course in any Medical College run by the Government of Karnataka and failed to serve in any Primary Health Centre or Primary Health Unit in the rural areas of Karnataka for the minimum period of one year after completion of the MBBS course. I am prepared to serve in the Government after the completion of my post graduation Degree /Diploma for a period of 4(four) years (inclusive of that period of one year rural service) if my candidature comes within the purview of Rule 15(5) OR for a period of 6(six) years (inclusive of that period of one year rural service) if my candidature comes within the purview of Rule 15(6) of the above Rules. I do hereby AGREE AND UNDERTAKE that in case I come in the category of candidates who have completed MBBS Course in any Medical College run by the Government and failed to serve in any Primary health Centre or Primary Health Unit in the rural areas of Karnataka for the minimum period of one year after completion of that course, I am prepared to serve for a total period of four years(inclusive of that period of one year) if my candidature comes within the purview of Rule 15(5) OR for a total period of six years if my candidature comes within the purview of Rule 15(6) of the above Rules as the case may be. I do hereby AGREE AND UNDERTAKE that incase I had completed my MBBS course through Government seat and failed to so serve the Government in the rural areas of Karnataka and also if I fail to serve the Government for a period of 3 years on completion of my post graduation Degree/ Diploma (as the case may be) as per Rule 15(5) of the above Rules. I would pay Rupees. One Lakh being the penalty for not serving in the rural area after completion of MBBS course with interest at 10% p.a by way of penalty and also Rupees. Fifty lakhs if I fail to so serve in the government on completion of my post graduation degree OR Rupees. Twenty five lakhs for failure to so serve in the Government on completion of the post graduation Diploma as the case may be in lumpsum and on demand by the government without any protest or delay. I do hereby AGREE AND UNDERTAKE that in the event of my leaving the post graduation course in the middle i.e., before its completion. I will voluntarily reimburse the loss occasioned to the Government on account of the loss of one Government seat which otherwise would have accrued to the benefit of the Government but for my omission to complete the course as assessed and demanded by the Government. Executed and signed in the presence of witnesses on this …………………day of …………….…………………. two thousand ………………… at ………………… Signatures and Addresses of the Witnesses Signature of the Candidate Name of the Candidate” 22. The State of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 (hereafter "2012 Act") whereunder, the State Government has promulgated the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Courses Rules, 2015 inter alia prescribing to the Graduate and Post Graduate medical students, a compulsory service training of one year in Government Primary Health Centers and Government Hospitals, after accomplishment of their courses. The same has been challenged by some aggrieved candidates by filing W.P.No.40566/2015 and other connected Cases wherein, this Court vide interim order dated 06.10.2015 has inter alia stayed the operation and execution of the Act, the Rules and all the proceedings taken up thereunder, albeit subject to certain conditions of equity. These cases are still pending. 23. The same has been challenged by some aggrieved candidates by filing W.P.No.40566/2015 and other connected Cases wherein, this Court vide interim order dated 06.10.2015 has inter alia stayed the operation and execution of the Act, the Rules and all the proceedings taken up thereunder, albeit subject to certain conditions of equity. These cases are still pending. 23. Despite the grant of stay order by this Court against the operation of 2012 Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Respondent No.1 has issued the Government Order No.HFW/241/MSF 2018, Bangalore dated 04.08.2018 for enforcing the said Act and the Rules. This act on the part of the Respondents-State may give scope for the argument that it is affront to the Court and Judicial Process. However, the question of its validity/efficacy cannot be gone into, in these Petitions, the challenge thereto notwithstanding, inasmuch as the impugned Counselling Notification has nothing to do as would be shown by the discussion hereinafter. 24. When this has been the position, the 2nd respondent has issued the Counselling Notification dated 28.09.2018 invoking the provisions of Rule 15 of 2006 Rules calling upon the candidates including the petitioners herein to participate in the compulsive counselling for making available their services in the Government colleges/hospitals. In these writ petitions, the same has been assailed on the grounds urged herein above. 25. As to the Counselling Notification and its relation to 2012 Act & the 2006 Rules: (a) The Counselling Notification addresses three classes of candidates viz., (i) All India Quota candidates, (ii) State Quota candidates admitted to 2015 degree courses and 2016 diploma courses in Government medical colleges/private medical colleges and (iii) the candidates who having completed PG degree/diploma in the year 2018 under Respondent-University have collected their documents from the respective colleges after submitting the affidavit undertaking to serve one year; (b) Admittedly, the petitioners are the Post Graduate candidates who had availed Government seats for the PG Degree course in the year 2015 and for the PG Diploma course in the year 2016; all of them barring a few, have furnished the undertaking by executing a duly stamped Bond in terms of Rule 15 (5) of the 2006 Rules; the validity of these Rules is not in challenge. Apparently, but for the undertaking and the Bond, the petitioners could not have availed the Government seats/the State Quota seats, be it in Government medical colleges or the Private medical colleges. Now the Government is invoking the said undertaking. That being the pith and substance of the matter, the petitioners’ contention that the 2012 Act is being enforced against them through the impugned Counselling Notification, does not gain acceptance; (c) The contention of the petitioners that the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 refers to 2012 Act and that there is a thick nexus between the impugned Counselling Notification and the Allotment Letters issued to the candidates post counselling, even if assumed to be true, does not come to their aid as long as the compulsion to serve the State is otherwise supported by law i.e., the 2006 Rules in terms of which the undertaking is given on a duly stamped Bond. The petitioners are not justified in interpreting the text of the impugned Counselling Notification as if it is a Euclid's Theorem or as an Act of Parliament, when it is only more or less a circular-likething issued by the 2nd respondent-Official; it is neither a delegated legislation nor a bye-law inasmuch as it spends itself once the task envisaged thereunder is accomplished and it does not demand repeated compliance for an indefinite period of time. The language employed therein being poor, it could have been drafted in a far better way, being beside the point; and (d) There is a lot of force in the contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General that merely because a Government Order/Circular quotes a wrong Act or mentions a wrong provision of law, the same cannot be struck down on that ground per se, if its validity can otherwise be established by banking upon a right instrument having the force of law. The arguable existence of kinship between the impugned Counselling Notification and the 2012 Act (that has been now stayed by this court), again per se is too feeble a ground to invalidate the impugned Notification when it is sufficiently supported by the 2006 Rules promulgated under Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 and the undertaking furnished by the candidates, in terms thereof. This Court in the case of Darshan v State of Karnataka ILR 1996 KAR 1241 has held that if the State can invoke its power under two enactments and it “chooses to exercise under one enactment, unless it can be shown that such exercise of power is not authorized or is excluded by the provision made in another enactment, the exercise of power will not become bad.” 26. As to statutory contract for compulsory service between the State and the citizen, and its enforceability: It is pertinent to mention that several other States have formulated similar policies, the validity whereof on challenge has been upheld by several High Courts; a. The Bombay High Court in Vinod Shankarlal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (114) Bom LR 4020, held that they “do not find any infirmity in the policy decision of the State Government that students who complete their medical degrees from government and municipal run medical colleges must perform public service for a stipulated period in recognition of the fact that the public exchequer bears a large burden of the expenditure incurred on their medical education. Such a requirement is based on a valid rationale and the classification meets the requirements of a reasonable classification for the purposes of Article 14 of the Constitution.” b. The Kerala High Court in Dr. Ayisha Beegam v. State of Kerala, (2018) 2 KLT 471 held that the students “…may serve the state and be paid or sever their relation and leave it; it comes at a price: paying liquidated damages. If the students leave for greener pastures, they must be prepared to pay, to compensate. Medical profession-tough as it is and, perhaps, lucrative as it may be-is not all about money; it has still an element of service.” c. Recently i.e on 14.09.2018, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Dr. Naval Patel & Ors., MAT 2076 of 2017, has held that the undertaking-bond “was a kind of contract that the writ petitioners entered into with the State to serve the State medical institutions for the bond period in return for the State imparting high quality and highly subsidised post graduate medical education to them. It was a bargain that the writ petitioners struck on their own volition and they must honour their obligation under the deal. It was a bargain that the writ petitioners struck on their own volition and they must honour their obligation under the deal. It is not that they do not have an exit route. It is not that they are in a position of servitude. They are free to pursue their career elsewhere without serving the State for the bond period upon payment of the recompense amounts mentioned in the bond.” The petitioners have not given any reason nor shown any circumstance that justifies this court not threading the beaten track. 27. As to whether the duly stamped undertaking is vitiated by the alleged coercion: (a) The contention of the petitioners that the undertaking furnished by them by executing the stamped Bond is unenforceable since the same was obtained by coercion inasmuch as but for such undertaking, the petitioners would have been denied the seats, being an unconscionable argument, does not merit acceptance. Rule 15 of 2006 Rules requires an undertaking being furnished by the candidates concerned and accordingly, the petitioners barring a few, have furnished one, that too on a stamped Bond, keeping their eyes wide open and without raising a little finger all these years. The petitioners did not lack capacity or autonomy. Nobody compelled them to seek allotment of Government Seats. Their contention that the undertaking was extracted abruptly at the time of admission process is false, to say the least inasmuch as the 2006 Rules are in force since December 2006 and the admission brochures have been published well in advance; (b) It was open to the petitioners to reserve right to challenge the requirement of undertaking, which they have not done. Even after completing the course also, they have not voiced their grievance against the same. Had the petitioners not availed the Government Seats, the same would have eventually gone to other deserving candidates, who would have scrupulously abided by the undertaking, as rightly contended by the learned AAG. By the act of the petitioners, these potential scrupulous candidates who otherwise would have benefited under the Government Seats, have been denied their rightful lot and eventually, the Government is deprived of their services; (c) Lastly, it has long been a settled position of law that a contract entered into by compulsion under law does not suffer the ground of coercion. In English law of Contract, this matter is discussed under the head “duress” which is a ground for avoiding a contract. Halsbury’s laws of England, Volume 9, 4th Edition at paragraph 297 states as under: “297. Duress. By duress is meant the compulsion under which a person acts through fear of personal suffering as from injury to the body or from confinement, actual or threatened…… There is no duress simply because a party has to enter into a contract by reason of statutory compulsion, or the fact that the other party is a monopoly supplier.” Similarly, “Chitty on Contracts” 28th Edition, Volume 1, Para 7-006 states: “Pressure and threats. Once it is accepted that the basis of duress does not depend upon the absence of consent, but on the combination of pressure and absence of practical choice, it follows that it is the nature of the pressure or the threats which becomes all-important. Clearly, not all pressure is illegitimate, nor even are all threats illegitimate. In ordinary commercial activity, pressure and even threats are both commonplace and often perfectly proper. Indeed, in one sense, all contracts are made under pressure: every offeror “threatens” that unless the offeree accepts the terms offered, he will not get the benefit of whatever goods or services are on offer. Nor can it even be said that the force or weight of the pressure or the threats is the decisive factor, “for in life, including the life of commerce and finance, many acts are done under pressure, sometimes overwhelming pressure, so that one can say that the actor had no choice but to act.” (d) There is yet another angle to the matter. Going by the legal position, the contesting respondents had no discretion to disobey the mandate of Rule 15 of 2006 Rules; the candidates too had no option than to furnish the undertaking to serve by way of price for the Government seat they opted for; similarly, the official respondents too had no option in the matter of securing such an undertaking. It was not obligatory for the candidates to take the Government Seats; once having availed the same at their sweet will and discretion, the candidates were required to furnish the undertaking and accordingly, most of them have furnished. Thus, the contention as to coercion is not only unsustainable but is unconscionable too, to say the least. 28. It was not obligatory for the candidates to take the Government Seats; once having availed the same at their sweet will and discretion, the candidates were required to furnish the undertaking and accordingly, most of them have furnished. Thus, the contention as to coercion is not only unsustainable but is unconscionable too, to say the least. 28. As to plea of “bonded labour” and ‘begar’ under Article 23 of the Constitution of India: (a) The contention of the Petitioners that enforcing the undertaking given by them on a stamped Bond, amounts to ‘bonded labour’ or ‘forced labour’ that is prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India, is misconceived and wrongly put forth, notwithstanding that the Apex Court has given an expansive significance to the term ‘forced labour’, in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Case), AIR 1982 SC 1473 . Bhagwati J. added that “where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words ‘forced labour’ under Article 23”. That Article 23(1) prohibits ‘bonded labour’, is true; but, the concept as such has different connotations in which the case of the petitioners does not fit, as they were not lacking in 'choice'. It is not that the candidates were compelled to take the Government seats; they were not in a helpless condition which the State has taken undue advantage of. The Petitioners having opted for the Government seats and having executed the undertaking in terms of clauses (5), (6) & (7) of Rule 15 of the 2006 Rules, knowingly and voluntarily, the plea of bonded labour/forced labour does not avail. Further, the monthly stipend/remuneration payable to the candidates going for public service/counselling is fixed at Rs.45,000/- which is more than the minimum wage for the said professionals as prescribed by the Government Notification vide No.KaE 125 LWA 2015 dated 06.01.2017, issued under section 5 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; (b) For the above reason, the plea of begar, again is misplaced. 'Begar' as employed in Article 23(1) means a labour or service that is exacted by the State or its instrumentality without giving reasonable remuneration for it. This is prohibited by the said Article is true. 'Begar' as employed in Article 23(1) means a labour or service that is exacted by the State or its instrumentality without giving reasonable remuneration for it. This is prohibited by the said Article is true. In this case, admittedly, the Government has fixed a monthly remuneration of Rs.45,000/-. Thus, the remuneration which the candidates in compulsory service draw is 12.5 % above what is legally prescribed as the minimum wages. Added to this, the respondent-State in its Written Notes filed on 01.12.2018 has specifically assured that it would look into the alleged inadequacy of the remuneration part. Therefore, this contention too does not come to the aid of petitioners; (c) The above apart, clause (2) of Article 23 permits the State to impose compulsory service for “public purposes”, which expression is wide enough to include not only military or police service but also other social services like the medical services, that too, for a short period of one year, the remaining two having been waived vide affidavit of the State. This aspect was discussed in the Constituent Assembly. Mr. H. V. Kamath suggested that the phrase “public purpose” be replaced with “national or social purpose”, arguing that it has a “wider and a higher, a more comprehensive connotation.” In response, Dr. Ambedkar stated that the word ‘public’ was “wide enough to cover both ‘national’ as well as ‘social’”. CAD Vol. VII, 3rd December, 1948; (d) The phrase “public purpose” was explained by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252 , argued by Dr. Ambedkar himself as the counsel. S.R. Das. J opined that “whatever furthers the general interests of the community as opposed to the particular interests of the individual must be regarded as a public purpose… The words “public purpose” used in article 23(2) indicate that the Constitution uses those words in a very large sense. In the never ending race the law must keep pace with the realities of the social and political evolution of the country as reflected in the Constitution.” Although Justice Das was writing predominantly in the context of Article 31(2) (as it then existed), he explicitly mentioned Article 23(2). Moreover, the interpretive principle of intratextualism allows this court to import or deduce meanings if the same (or similar) term is used in other parts of the Constitution. Akhil Amar, “Intratextualism,” 112 Harv. L. Rev. 747 (1999). Moreover, the interpretive principle of intratextualism allows this court to import or deduce meanings if the same (or similar) term is used in other parts of the Constitution. Akhil Amar, “Intratextualism,” 112 Harv. L. Rev. 747 (1999). (e) Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the Apex Court in Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, 1980 AIR 470, held that “it is a principle generally recognised in national legal system that, in the event of doubt, the national rule is to be interpreted in accordance with the State’s international obligations.” Therefore, it is worth noting that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by India in 1979, which states that “work or service that forms part of normal civil obligations” is not forced labour (Article 8). According to the ICCPR Human Rights Committee, in order to be a normal civil obligation, “the labour in question must, at a minimum, not be an exceptional measure; it must not possess a punitive purpose or effect; and it must be provided for by law in order to serve a legitimate purpose”. Faure v. Australia, Communication No. 1036/2001, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1036/2001 (2005); and (f) In Butler v. Perry, 240 US 328 (1916), the US Supreme Court held that a law requiring able-bodied men to perform a reasonable amount on public roads was not in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits involuntary servitude. The Court reasoned that every individual owed certain duties to the State, such as services in the army, militia, the jury, etc., and that the Amendment did not intend to bar the enforcement of those duties. Thus, even in liberal and advanced constitutional jurisdictions, the compulsory public service is upheld by the courts. The provisions of Rule 15 of the 2006 Rules whose validity is not in challenge and the undertaking furnished by the Petitioners in terms thereof if construed, in the light of this, the contention of forced labour and begar has to fail, as of constitutional imperative. 29. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: a. There is yet another dimension to the plea of bonded labour. 29. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: a. There is yet another dimension to the plea of bonded labour. The provisions relating to Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution have to be viewed in the light of relevant provisions in Part IV that prescribe the Directive Principles of State Policy which impose certain obligations inter alia on the State as widely defined under Article 12. S.R. DAS J. in Kameshwar Singh, supra, observed “[i]f […] the State is to give effect to these avowed purposes of our Constitution we must regard as a public purpose all that will be calculated to promote the welfare of the people as envisaged in these directive principles of State policy whatever else that expression may mean.” b. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 , it is held that “The significance of the perception that Parts III and IV together constitute the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the Constitution is to be traced to a deep understanding of the scheme of the Indian Constitution. […] In other words, the Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.” Therefore, Article 23 has to be read with the Directive Principle in Articles 39 (e) and 47 which speak of a primary duty cast on the State for improving the public health. c. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vincent Panikurlangara vs. Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165 held that “In a welfare State, therefore, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health ... maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high [among state obligations] as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged. maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high [among state obligations] as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged. Attending to public health, in our opinion, therefore, is of high priority--perhaps the one at the top.” In view of all this, the impugned counselling Notification cannot be faltered inasmuch as it has been issued by the Respondent-State not only with authority of law but with a avowed intent to give effect to the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution and sanctified by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions beginning with KESAVANANDA, AIR 1973 SC 1461 and blossoming into SANJIVA COKE, AIR 1983 SC 239 . 30. Undertaking to Serve for 3 Years and the concession by the State Rule 15 (5) of 2006 Rules requires the allottees of the Government Seats to furnish an undertaking to serve the Government for a minimum period of three years and accordingly, the allottees have furnished the undertaking, barring a few, on a stamped bond without raising any objection. The petitioners are asked to serve only for a period of one year, the remaining two having been waived by the State by filing a sworn affidavit dated 30.11.2018, paragraph 6 whereof reads as under: “6. I further submit that as the State Government vide Notification dated 28.9.2018 has called for serving one year in the Government of Karnataka, the remaining two years of service after the completion of the said one year shall not be insisted on the students admitted in the year 2015 and passed out in the year 2018. The bonds of those students who render one year of service as per the Notification dated 28.9.2018 will not be invoked for the remaining two years of service.” This is a great concession which the State has conferred on the petitioners. Allowing the petitioners to shirk away from the obligation of serving the public, that too for a short period of one year, when the Rule prescribes and the stamped Bond stipulates three years, virtually amounts to placing premium on the unconscionability and bruising the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda [i.e., abide by what is agreed to]; the sanctity of the Rule and the solemnity of the Bond will be at stake. This will not be in the best interest of the State or the Society. 31. As to arbitrariness in the counselling process and requirement of norms a. All the learned counsel for the petitioners and some of the petitioners in person grieved that the counselling process is being conducted in an unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable way. The pick and chose principle is adopted by the authorities and so also, the rule of first-come-first serve. The petitioners contend that if the authorities prepare the merit list and thereafter, make the allotment of places/positions, there will be no scope for grieving at all. They further contend that the so called merit list attached to the Statement of Objections filed by the official respondents is only a marks list of the students who selected the Government seats during the counselling and not the List of Comparative Merits of the candidates. There is some force in this contention. b. To ensure fairness and absence of arbitrariness, a merit list of all the candidates who were called for compulsive counselling has to be prepared as is normally done for the admission to educational institutions or to the public employment. How the merit list should be prepared and what the modalities of the counselling should be are the matters for the State to ponder over. However, till the same is done, the candidates cannot be compelled to undergo the counselling process. But at the same time the urgent need of serving hands cannot also be put at a bay. Therefore, it is for the State to take urgent remedial action in this regard. 32. Counselling Notification and Discriminatory Treatment qua Candidates of yesteryears. a. The last contention of the Petitioners that the impugned Counselling Notification is selectively discriminatory inasmuch as all other candidates who have availed the Government seats in all the preceding years after furnishing similar undertaking have been left to go free, has also some force. Had those candidates also been called for serving the State, the period of service which the candidates now called for counselling, are required to serve probably could have been pro tanto reduced and this would hopefully infuse a sense of justice and fairness to the grieving Petitioners. Had those candidates also been called for serving the State, the period of service which the candidates now called for counselling, are required to serve probably could have been pro tanto reduced and this would hopefully infuse a sense of justice and fairness to the grieving Petitioners. b. The contention of the State that the candidates of the previous batches having scattered away and some of them having acquired higher qualification cannot be called for service in terms of their obligation bonds, is legally misconceived. It is not difficult for the State to ascertain the whereabouts of such candidates, with the vast machinery being at its command. Therefore, the State is under an obligation to undertake such an exercise in fairness to the discriminated petitioners and in the best interest of the public service. c. The other contention of the State that many of the candidates of the yester years having acquired higher qualifications cannot be called for serving the Government in terms of the bond, is completely misdirected in law. An obligation under Rule 15 (5) of 2006 Rules, accompanied by a duly stamped bond does not cease to be enforceable merely because the obligee has acquired higher qualification. If such persons are not willing to serve, then the State should enforce the bond by initiating coercive proceedings for recovery of the penalty (Rs.50 lakh or Rs.25 lakh as the case may be for each defaulter) and that amount may be used for enhancing the monthly remuneration payable to counselled candidates. It is strange that this aspect has not been pondered over by the State. 33. Arbitrary absolving of bond obligation on receiving paltry sums when Rules prescribe penalty of Rs. 50 Lakh/30 Lakh and consequent loss to the State a. The State on the direction by this Court vide Memo dated 20.12.2018 has furnished certain information which is startling. Admittedly there have been 5,348 candidates who have availed the Government Medical Seats for P.G. Degree/Diploma during the period between 2008-09 and 2017-18. Of them, only 4,965 candidates alone have furnished the undertaking on stamped paper in terms of Rule 15 (5) of 2006 Rules. The reason as to why from other candidates such undertaking was not secured is not forthcoming. Regarding what action is taken for those responsible for this lapse is also left unanswered despite the direction dated 06.12.2018. Of them, only 4,965 candidates alone have furnished the undertaking on stamped paper in terms of Rule 15 (5) of 2006 Rules. The reason as to why from other candidates such undertaking was not secured is not forthcoming. Regarding what action is taken for those responsible for this lapse is also left unanswered despite the direction dated 06.12.2018. b. The respondent-State officials are alleged to have absolved several candidates from the obligation to serve after receiving a paltry sum of Rs.1 lakh as against the legally prescribed penalty of Rs.5 lakh & Rs.3 lakh, and post 2013 amendment, Rs.50 lakh & Rs.25 lakh as the case may be. During the period between 2008-09 and 2017-18, there are about 4,965 P.G. Degree/Diploma candidates, who have furnished the undertaking to serve the Government. However, only a small sum of Rs.11.89 crore is stated to have been recovered as penalty, when prima facie it ought to have been a several hundred crore rupees. Matter is more than what meets the eye. This is a very serious matter warranting attention of the State Government/the Comptroller & Auditor General of India/the Accountant General for the State. More is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave it unsaid. 34. Whether All India Quota candidates are exempted from bond obligation. The contention of the petitioners that some of them who have availed seats under the All India Quota cannot be compelled to undergo counselling, despite the undertaking given by them on the stamped Bond, is misconceived. The provisions of Rule 15 of 2006 Rules do not exempt them from the obligation. They may constitute a separate class for some other purpose but not for the compulsive counselling. Having taken the seat after furnishing the undertaking, it not open to the obligates to turn around and to try for a repudiation or a repudiation of their liability/obligation, at this length of time. An argument to the contrary could offend the texture and architecture of the said rule. This apart, the classification of the candidates as those falling under All India Quota and others who do not so fall, would be plainly discriminatory, there being no intelligible differentia on which such classification is arguably founded, when Undertaking has been given the said candidates on par with others categories. 35. This apart, the classification of the candidates as those falling under All India Quota and others who do not so fall, would be plainly discriminatory, there being no intelligible differentia on which such classification is arguably founded, when Undertaking has been given the said candidates on par with others categories. 35. As to candidates pursuing higher studies and the deferment of counselling The last contention of the Petitioners that some of them are likely to join higher courses of studies for making value addition and therefore, they should be spared during the tenure of the said courses, being reasonable and fair, is sustainable. Such of the candidates who are slated to join higher courses or the like could be spared subject to the rider that they would come back to serve the Government after the course is over. By doing this, the Undertaking given by the candidates is not dissolved, but its compliance is deferred to the advantage of the candidate and also of the public at large which would avail the services of more qualified doctors than otherwise. Since the Addl. Advocate General has assured such relaxation, subject to all just exceptions, this grievance of the petitioners finds redressal at the hands of the State itself. Therefore, there is no need to deliberate more on this. Since the Addl. Advocate General has assured such relaxation, subject to all just exceptions, this grievance of the petitioners finds redressal at the hands of the State itself. Therefore, there is no need to deliberate more on this. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed in part with the following directions: (i) the candidates shall not be compelled to undergo counselling under the impugned Counselling Notification dated 28.09.2018 till after a Comparative Merit List of all the candidates in question, barring those who are already serving the Government, is prepared and operated; (ii) the candidates who before long are slated to go for higher or specialty courses recognized by the RGUHS/Medical Council of India, shall be deferred from counselling on proving their credential by some cogent material, till after the course is complete, regardless of its result, subject to the rider that they Undertake to come back for service after the course period; this concession is available only once; (iii) the respondents 1 and 2 shall make all endeavours to invoke the Bond Obligation furnished by all the candidates who have availed the Government seats under the aforesaid 2006 Rules, ab inceptio either by calling them for service, and in default for paying the penalty prescribed by Rule 15; (iv) the Respondent-Government shall within a period of six months formulate a Comprehensive Scheme by laying down the guidelines for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of Rule 15 of 2006 Rules and for invoking the Undertaking given by the candidates in all the yester years and in future; (v) the Respondent-Government shall forthwith constitute an inquiry/investigation for penalizing/prosecuting the culpable officials/persons responsible for not securing the Undertaking/Stamped Bond from the candidates who had availed the Government seats under 2006 Rules, and also those who are responsible for absolving the obligee candidates from the Undertaking/Bond by accepting amounts of penalty in sums less than what is prescribed under Rule 15; and (vi) the Respondent-Government shall consider the grievance of the petitioners/candidates for enhancement of monthly stipend/payment keeping in view all relevant factors including the Pay Scale admissible to the posts in respect of which they are to undergo counselling. Costs made easy.