Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 242 (UTT)

Aditya Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-04-22

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner has raised the following prayers before this Court:- a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to relieve the petitioner from the service bond taking into consideration the period served at Government Doon Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun, at District Hospital, Uttarkashi and at Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar and the time wasted by the respondents in not appointing / posting the petitioner after his completion of postgraduate Medical Course as served under bond OR IN ALTERNATIVE Either to relieve the petitioner from service bond of two years after charging the difference of tuition fee, i.e., remaining tuition fees in proportionate to the period the petitioner has not served under the service bond after deducting the period served at Government Doon Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun, at District Hospital, Uttarkashi and at Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar under bond, in case the time wasted by the respondents in giving appointment to the petitioner after his post graduation is not counted as period served under bond Or to allow the petitioner either to serve for the remaining period of bond of two years, after deducting the period served at Government Doon Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun, at District Hospital, Uttarkashi and at Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar under bond, in case the time wasted by the respondents in giving appointment to the petitioner after his post graduation is not counted as period served under bond or to pay for the remaining time to be served under bond, in case the time wasted by the respondent in giving appointment to the petitioner after his post graduation is not counted as period served under bond. b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to count the period wasted by the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner and allowing him to sit idle as the served period under the service bond. c. Such other relief be granted which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. d. Award cost to the petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the academic session 2013-14, the petitioner took admission in the Post-Graduate Medical Course in the Government Medical College, Haldwani, District-Nainital. At the time of admission, the petitioner was asked to fill a bond. d. Award cost to the petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the academic session 2013-14, the petitioner took admission in the Post-Graduate Medical Course in the Government Medical College, Haldwani, District-Nainital. At the time of admission, the petitioner was asked to fill a bond. According to the bond, the petitioner was required to serve two years of service "in the hilly region of the State". In case, the bond was entered between the petitioner and the State, the petitioner was entitled to a subsidized tuition fees of Rs. 60,000/- per annum against the full tuition fee of Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner did, indeed, enter into a bond with the State. The bond clearly states that the petitioner would be required to serve the State in "the hilly region" for a period of two years. On 02.08.2016, he completed his Post-Graduation course in Anesthesiology. After completion of the M.D. Degree, on 17.10.2016 the petitioner was directed to join the Female Hospital at Pithoragarh under the service bond. The petitioner was informed about the order dated 17.10.2016, by letter dated 21.10.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3. Subsequently, on 19.07.2017 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology at the Government Doon Medical College & Hospital. Consequently, on 26.08.2019, the petitioner joined the said post. On 29.08.2019 and 19.05.2020, the petitioner informed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 about the fact that he is working as an Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology at the said hospital. On 06.06.2020, the petitioner applied for his M.D. Degree. On 09.06.2020, he submitted a representation to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for setting him free from the bond. However the petitioner claims that so far, he has not heard anything from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to setting him free from the bond. The petitioner has also represented to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the service rendered by him from 19.07.2019 should be included as a service under the bond. However, even the said representation has fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, vide letter dated 09.07.2020, the petitioner was appointed at District Hospital, Uttarkashi. He served in Uttarkashi till 30.10.2020. Vide order dated 17.10.2020, he has been transferred to Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar. Presently, he is working at Narendranagar. 3. However, even the said representation has fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, vide letter dated 09.07.2020, the petitioner was appointed at District Hospital, Uttarkashi. He served in Uttarkashi till 30.10.2020. Vide order dated 17.10.2020, he has been transferred to Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar. Presently, he is working at Narendranagar. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case the service rendered by him from 19.07.2019 till his transfer on 09.07.2020 were to be considered as a service under the bond, he would have completed the term of two years of service under the bond. Therefore, he would be entitled to be set free from the bond. However, the respondents have refused to do so. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Lalit Belwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while others have been granted the benefit of having served in non-hilly regions of the State, the petitioner is not being granted the said benefit by the respondents. Therefore, a hostile discrimination is being practiced against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, submits that the bond entered into between the petitioner and the State is extremely categorical that the medical student, who is being provided the subsidized tuition fee, will be required to serve the State for two years in the "hilly region". Since District-Dehradun does not fall within the "hilly region" of the State, and is, in fact, in "the plain areas" of the State, the service rendered by the petitioner at DistrictDehradun cannot be counted as a service rendered under the bond. Moreover, the concept of equality does not exist in the negative sense. Merely because the service rendered by others in the plain areas may have been considered as having served under the bond, the same benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the parties are bound by the bond entered into between them. Therefore, this Court cannot possibly direct the State to violate the contract. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the prayer made by the petitioner should be rejected by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that the parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the prayer made by the petitioner should be rejected by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that the parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract. A bare perusal of the bond executed by the petitioner on 26.08.2013 clearly reveals that "a duty has been imposed upon the petitioner to serve the State of Uttarakhand as a Medical Officer / Specialist on contract basis at least for a minimum period of two years in any government hospital or health centre situated in hilly region of the State, failing which they shall be liable severally or jointly to pay the Government full tuition fees of the entire M.D. / M.S. course calculated at prevailing rate along with such interest as may be determined by the Government." This condition contained in the contract requires the petitioner to serve for a minimum period of two years in the "hilly region". 8. Admittedly, District-Dehradun does not fall within the hilly region of the State. In fact, DistrictDehradun is considered as a part of "the plain region" of the State. Therefore, obviously the service rendered by the petitioner in District-Dehradun cannot be counted as a part of his service rendered under the bond. Hence, the respondents are justified in not considering the petitioner's service rendered in District-Dehradun as a part of the service under the bond. 9. Needless to say, the concept of equality does not exist in the negative sense. Merely because the respondents may have considered the service rendered by others in the plain region of the State as a part of the service under the bond, the same benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. Furthermore, this Court can neither modify the conditions of the bond, nor direct the respondents to commit breach of the bond. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a hostile discrimination being practiced against the petitioner is without any foundation. 10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. 11. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.