Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 615 (MP)

Vaibhav Yawalkar v. Union of India

2019-08-28

R.S.JHA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER : R.S. JHA, J. As all these petitions involve adjudication of similar and identical issues, they are heard and decided concomitantly by this common order. 2. This bunch of petitions have been filed by the doctors, who are pursuing Post Graduate Courses, being aggrieved by the imposition of conditions by the State Government for executing a bond to render compulsory services in rural areas notified by the State from time to time with a stipulation that in default thereof, the bond of Rs. 10 lakhs for the P.G. Course and Rs. 8 Lakhs for the Diploma Course would be forfeited. 3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid conditions on the ground that those petitioners who have been admitted in the P.G course under the All India Quota seats cannot be made to render compulsory rural service in the State as the conditions imposed by the State are not applicable to All India Quota students. 4. In some of the petitions the petitioners have also challenged the legality and validity of Rules 11 and 17 of the Rules that have been notified from time to time incorporating the condition of execution of a compulsory rural service bond. In some of the petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 17 of the Rules for admission in the year 2013 and similar rules that have been incorporated subsequently, wherein it has been stipulated that the original documents of the Doctors would be released only after they fulfil the Bond conditions. 5. In W.P No. 9857/2014 the petitioners who had obtained admission for the session 2013-14 have, in addition, challenged the imposition of condition for executing compulsory rural service bond by Executive Instruction dated 16-8- 2013, firstly on the ground of lack of power and authority in the State to impose such a condition and, secondly, on the ground that the condition was imposed after the petitioners had already undertaken the 2013 NEET Examination in which there was no requirement or condition for rendering compulsory rural service. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that since most of them have been admitted through the All India Quota, they cannot be compelled to execute a compulsory rural service bond. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that since most of them have been admitted through the All India Quota, they cannot be compelled to execute a compulsory rural service bond. The petitioners have also challenged the condition of executing a compulsory rural service bond on the ground that the same is arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioners cannot be denied their fundamental right to pursue higher studies or to practice any profession. 7. The respondents have filed a return in most of the cases wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the letter of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, dated 2-8-2013/6-8-2013 requiring all the States to include a uniform condition for executing a bond, the State Government had issued Executive Instructions/Directions on 16-8-2013, Annexure P-4, filed along with W. P. No. 9857/2014 which has also been filed as Annexure R-1 by the respondent State, directing all the Medical Colleges in the State to ensure execution of compulsory rural service bond by the students who are granted admission in their college with a further stipulation and condition that their original documents shall be deposited with the College at the time of admission and would be released only on satisfying the bond conditions. 8. The State, in its return, has stated that the Executive power of the State co-exists with the legislative power and as the State has the power to legislate in the field, therefore, it also has the competence to issue Executive Instructions as contained in Annexure R-1 requiring all students and doctors to execute compulsory rural service bond. It is submitted that the aforesaid conditions apply to all students that have taken admission in the State of M.P. irrespective of the fact that they have obtained admission under the All India Quota or the State Quota and a uniform policy in respect of both has been adopted by treating all the students studying in the Medical College in the State of M.P. as one class. 9. The learned Govt. Advocate has also placed before this Court the P.G Admission Rules, i.e. the M.P. Medical and Dental Education P.G Admission Rules 2013, published in the M. P. Rajpatra (Extra-Ordinary) on 21-5-2013 and has specifically referred to Rule 11 therein which contains a stipulation for executing the compulsory rural service bond. 10. 9. The learned Govt. Advocate has also placed before this Court the P.G Admission Rules, i.e. the M.P. Medical and Dental Education P.G Admission Rules 2013, published in the M. P. Rajpatra (Extra-Ordinary) on 21-5-2013 and has specifically referred to Rule 11 therein which contains a stipulation for executing the compulsory rural service bond. 10. On the strength of the aforesaid Rules notified on 21-5-2013, it is submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate that the contentions, raised by the petitioners in W.P. No. 9857/2014, to the effect that there were no Rules in the State of M.P. regarding execution of a compulsory rural service bond at the time when they took admission on 17/18-8-2013 is factually incorrect. It is submitted that all the students who took admission in the 2013-14 session were also bound by the aforesaid stipulation in the Rules and the Executive Instructions dated 16-8- 2013 and comply the condition of execution of the compulsory rural service bond. 11. The learned counsel for the parties have placed before this Court the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents and others vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 376/2018 dated 19-8-2019. In the said decision the Supreme Court has upheld the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal High Courts, upholding similar bond conditions imposed by the aforesaid States. 12. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has repelled similar contentions of the petitioners before it that the requirement of execution of a compulsory rural service bond is not applicable to the All India Quota candidates; that the State has no jurisdiction to issue such Executive Instructions or Rules; that the imposition of the conditions for executing the compulsory rural service bond was in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the doctors and is arbitrary and unreasonable and is, therefore, violative of Articles 19 and 23 of the Constitution of India; that the enforcement of the bond amounted to enforcing a contract of personal service and that the imposition of that condition was in restraint of the right to practice their profession. 13. 13. While negativing all the contentions of the petitioners, the Supreme Court has specifically stated that the condition was in the interest of the public and in furtherance of the object and purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and does not deserve to be quashed, moreso, as the concerned doctors accepted the admissions and enjoyed the benefit of pursuing studies in the State after accepting the conditions without any protest. The Supreme Court has held that the execution of the bond was a part of a composite package which was accepted by the petitioners. 14. All the issues raised by the petitioners in the present petitions have been considered by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents (supra) and have been rejected. The issues raised by the petitioners in the present petitions stand rejected by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 15. The issue raised by the petitioners that similarly placed doctors have been granted relief by the Chhattisgarh High Court by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anand S. Biji vs. State of Kerala and others, JT 2001 (10) SC 121 and, therefore, the petitioners may also be granted the same relief, is also misconceived. In the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents (supra) the Supreme Court has specifically and categorically held that the decision in the case of Anand S. Biji (supra) and Harsh Pratap Sisodiya vs. Union of India and others, (1999) 2 SCC 575 , did not relate to adjudging the condition for execution of the bond or the conditions of the bond and, therefore, the decision of the Chattisgarh High Court based on Anand Biji (supra) does not render any assistance to the petitioners. 16. 16. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has extensively considered all the issues and has held that the State has the power to impose the condition of executing a compulsory rural service bond either through Executive Instructions or by any other means; that the All India Quota students and State Quota students belong to the same class as far as the execution of condition of bond is concerned; that the condition imposed by the State for executing such a compulsory rural service bond, does not violate any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and is neither arbitrary or unreasonable and is infact in furtherance of the object of Article 21 and that it is not in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India nor does it amount to imposing any restraint on the profession or execution of any contract for personal service, we do not find any merit in the petitions as the issue raised, stands decided against the petitioners by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 17. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the petitions filed by the petitioners, being meritless, are accordingly dismissed, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents (supra). 18. In most of these cases, interim orders have been granted for release of the original documents which were submitted by the petitioners subject to certain conditions and undertakings furnished by the petitioners that have been specifically stated in the interim orders. Pursuant to the final decision of this Court passed in these petitions, the authorities of the State would examine the case of each individual petitioner in respect of compliance of the terms and conditions imposed in the interim order as well as the final order passed today, and thereafter, if necessary, take action against the petitioner including immediate cancellation of registration and initiating penal action against the petitioner in case so required. 19. The petitions, filed by the petitioners, are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.