JUDGMENT REPORTABLE 1. These writ petitions since involve common issues, as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions after their admission in the year 2019-20 have completed their Post Graduate Medical Degree from different medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan, they felt aggrieved against the order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022. 3. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12611/2022 are taken as a lead case and this Court deems it proper to quote the prayer made in the said writ petition, as follows:- (i) The impugned order dated 12.07.2022 and impugned notification dated 04.08.2022, may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) By issuing appropriate writ or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed:- (a) To release documents of the petitioners, (b) Not to invoke the condition No.2 making security deposit of Rs.25 Lakhs, In the alternative; (c) To provide all vacancies of Senior Residents in Govt. and RAJMES Colleges for allocation afresh for PG candidates in pursuance to Policy dated 12.07.2022; (d) To appoint Post Graduates against such posts for which the qualification is Post Graduation Degree/Diploma; (e) To adhere to the mandate of Applicable Laws; 4. The petitioners have pleaded that they were granted admission in Post Graduate Medical Course in different subjects under the All India and State Level quota in the Session 2019- 2020 at different Medical Colleges. The petitioners passed out their Post Graduate Degree Course in May, June & July, 2022. 5. The petitioners have pleaded that at the time of giving admission to them, they were required to execute a service bond/undertaking in favour of the State Government to the effect that after completion of course, they would be bound to serve the Government for a minimum period of five years, if Government desired and on such failure, they were liable to deposit a penalty of Rs.25 Lakhs. 6. 6. The petitioners have pleaded that initially S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022 was filed before this Court, wherein the petitioners were selected for Senior Residentship in the institutes of National importance like AIIMS/PGI/JIPMER and their documents were not released by the State Government and this Court vide interim order dated 04.08.2022, directed the State Government to release the documents subject to undertaking/bond to be furnished by the petitioners to join the employment, if offered by the State Government. The State Authorities were directed to release the documents of the petitioners on furnishing such undertaking. 7. The petitioners have pleaded that like the petitioner- Dr.Krishnapriya S. Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022, some of the other similarly situated candidates applied for the Senior Residentship programme, however, they were not considered and as such, details of such 9 candidates have been furnished, who appeared for the Senior Residentship but were not selected. 8. The petitioners have pleaded that after interim order was passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022, the State Government on 04.08.2022 issued notification, asking all such candidates, who were admitted in the Academic Year 2019 in the course of DM/M.Ch/MD/MS and passed out in the Academic Session 2022, to apply online for the post of Assistant Professor/Senior Demonstrator/ Senior Resident/Medical Officer/Junior Specialist/Junior Resident, on urgent temporary basis/tenure basis. 9. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that the order dated 12.07.2022, was made applicable upon those candidates who were pursuing their Post Graduate Course or Super Speciality Course i.e. from Academic Session 2022-23, however, the respondents also made the said order applicable from the Session 2019-20 by applying it retrospectively, even to the candidates like petitioners, who had already passed their Three Year Course, before issuance of order dated 12.07.2022. 10. The petitioners have pleaded that in order to implement the order dated 12.07.2022, the Medical Education Department constituted a State Level Counselling Board of Seven Members to complete the process of taking two years service from the candidates, who have qualified Post Graduate and Super Speciality Course and accordingly, they issued an order dated 22.07.2022. 11. 10. The petitioners have pleaded that in order to implement the order dated 12.07.2022, the Medical Education Department constituted a State Level Counselling Board of Seven Members to complete the process of taking two years service from the candidates, who have qualified Post Graduate and Super Speciality Course and accordingly, they issued an order dated 22.07.2022. 11. The petitioners have pleaded that the impugned order/policy dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022, have been passed in violation of the various provisions laid down in the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963. 12. The petitioners have pleaded in their petitions that the policy of the execution of bond by the candidates after acquiring the requisite qualification, is also prevalent in other States. The petitioners have quoted an example of notification of Karnataka Government, whereby candidates who have completed their Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Course, are required to serve for one year compulsory services in the Government Hospitals and their posting is to be given in the concerned speciality as per merit- cum-choice. Similarly, an example of Government of Himachal Pradesh has also been quoted, where candidates are appointed for a period of two years based upon their specialization. 13. The respondents-State filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded that the State Government by issuing an order dated 12.07.2022, has prescribed a process for appointing the students who have completed their Post Graduation and Super Speciality Courses from the Government Medical Colleges to serve in the State of Rajasthan and such students were required to submit/execute a bond in this regard and the State Government reduced the period of compulsory service from 5 years to 2 years and the same has been made applicable to all the students from the Academic Session 2019-20 onwards. The State has pleaded that as per their requirement, the candidates would be required to work as Senior Resident, Associate Professor, Junior Resident, Senior Demonstrator and Medical Officer and allotment process would be conducted by a Counselling Board, the Counselling Board, was to proceed as per merit-cum-choice & preference and merit was to be based on NEET rank and candidates were requested to fill their choices for the vacancies, allowing the meritorious students/candidates to opt for posting, as per their choice. 14. The respondents have pleaded that in furtherance of order dated 12.07.2022, they constituted a Counselling Board and vide notification dated 04.08.2022 informed all the candidates that online allotment process for appointment on the various posts have been initiated and all the candidates were instructed to authenticate their details that was available on the website and accordingly on 05.08.2022, a list of students from Broad Speciality and Super Speciality was uploaded on the Official Website and as such, a revised list was also prepared on 09.08.2022 and the same was uploaded wherein 88 students were shown in Super Speciality list and 659 students were shown in Broad Speciality list. 15. The respondents have pleaded that the Counselling Board had uploaded the vacant post matrix of total 1621 posts of Assistant Professor, Senior Demonstrator, Senior Resident and Junior Resident collectively and as such, the complete schedule was provided for filling the online application form. 16. The respondents have pleaded that the State Government is proceeding in expeditious manner and taking all the steps to appoint the candidates in a just and fair manner coupled with their merit-cum-choice. 17. The respondents have pleaded that the specific reason for execution of bond by the candidates, was to repay the State Government and public at large for the expenses incurred in providing subsidized education and to build the infrastructure which was required to provide Specialised Educational Course. 18. The respondents have pleaded that education is provided to the students of the Government Medical Colleges at minimum fees and it is not a fundamental right of the petitioners to pursue their Post Graduate and Super Speciality Course in the Government Medical Colleges on a subsidized fees. The State has justified withholding of the original documents to ensure fulfillment of the conditions of the bond. 19. The State has justified withholding of the original documents to ensure fulfillment of the conditions of the bond. 19. The respondents have also pleaded that the allegation of violation of National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the Post Graduate Regulations Act, 2000 and the National Medical Commission PEQ Regulations, 2022 is not at all justified and the petitioners are bound to serve the State Government as per the undertaking given by them. The Post Graduate Doctors even if they are posted as Medical Officers, the same cannot result into any violation of rights of the petitioners and it is for the State Government to take the services of the Doctors for providing the basic health facilities to its citizen. 20. The respondents-State has pleaded that the petitioners are not honoring the undertaking which they have unequivocally submitted and the State Government by issuing the order and asking the petitioners to serve the State Government, has not violated any provisions of law. 21. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply and they have pleaded that the respondents on the one hand issued the order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022 for making selections by constituting a Board and on the other hand, Walk-in Interviews were conducted by the various Medical Colleges ignoring the NEET PG Rank and details of certain Medical Colleges have been given, where Walk-in Interviews were held and appointments were made. 22. The petitioners have pleaded in their rejoinder that various vacancies were filled up by less meritorious NEET PG rank holders and as such, the State Government is desirous of taking the services of the petitioners on lower post like Junior Resident etc. ignoring their qualification of Post Graduate. 23. The petitioners have pleaded that the actual intent of the State Government behind withholding the documents is to force the petitioners to pay the bond amount while filling up the post of Senior Resident ignoring the NEET PG criteria and to deprive the petitioners from Senior Residentship in the premium Government Medical Colleges. 24. The respondents filed an additional affidavit dated 13.09.2022, whereby the two orders dated 24.02.2015 and 17.02.2016 have been placed on record, requiring the execution of bonds by the candidates who joined the Post Graduate and Super Speciality Courses. The respondents have placed on record the details with regard to total number of candidates, who were available for allotment and name of speciality, etc. The respondents have placed on record the details with regard to total number of candidates, who were available for allotment and name of speciality, etc. The respondents filed another additional affidavit dated 23.09.2022, wherein they informed this Court that the State Government thought it proper to work out the solution on the issue of utilisation of services of the candidates, who have passed Post Graduate commensurating with their qualification and as such, meeting of different Higher Officials of the Government of Rajasthan had taken place and after approval of the Competent Authority, the formal order was to be placed before the Court. 25. Learned Advocate General Mr.M.S. Singhvi filed another additional affidavit before this Court, wherein an order dated 27.09.2022 has been placed on record. The respondents by issuing the order dated 27.09.2022, have decided to take the services of the candidates, who have completed their PG studies under the service bond to be known as 'Post Graduate Medical Consultant' and to be employed on contract basis on fixed monthly remuneration in first year by paying them remuneration of Rs.85,000/- and in the second year Rs.90,000/- monthly. The respondents have decided to consider the Post Graduate Medical Graduates and persons after completing the Super Speciality Courses for the post of Senior Resident in the Government Medical Colleges, Assistant Professor in the Government Medical Colleges for the candidates completing their Senior Residentship in Broad Speciality, the Junior Specialists in Medical Health Department and any other post prescribing the qualification of Post Graduate. 26. The respondents have also decided that such persons will be appointed on vacant post on the basis of merit-cum-choice, as per procedure laid down in the order dated 12.07.2022. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioners have confined their challenge to the following actions of the respondents i.e. (i) the post offered to the petitioners does not commensurate with their qualification, (ii) action of State of appointment of persons by way of Walk-in Interviews without following order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022 is arbitrary and discriminatory and, (iii) the respondents do not have any power to retain the original documents of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made following submissions:- 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made following submissions:- 1. JOB/POST OFFERED TO THE PETITIONERS DOES NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR QUALIFICATION:- (a) The offer of job to the petitioners or to ask them to work on a post which does not commensurate with the qualification acquired by them, is per se illegal and arbitrary. (b) The State while offering the job to the petitioners cannot ask them to work on the lower post and the same results into sheer misuse of talent and skill acquired by the petitioners after acquiring the Post Graduate Medical qualification and such decision suffers from non-application of mind. (c) The State being a model employer will not be justified in asking the petitioners to work on such posts and places, where infrastructure is not adequate to utilize their skill and only on account of signing a bond, the petitioners cannot be forced to work on such posts, which are to be manned by a person of having lower qualification. 2. GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING ITS OWN DECISION BY NOT FOLLOWING ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 AND NOTIFICATION DATED 04.08.2022:- (a) Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Walk-in Interviews as undertaken by the different Medical colleges after issuance of order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022, are in violation of decision of the State Government to fill the different posts by appointing the Post Graduate Medical Doctors on the basis of their merit obtained in NEET and as per their choice to be given while applying. The respondents cannot violate their own orders and blow hot and cold together. (b) The selection of candidates having lesser marks and depriving the petitioners from consideration of their courses as per their merit and choice, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS-- ILLEGAL (a) The respondents do not have any authority to withhold the documents after completion of Post Graduate qualification of the petitioners. (b) The respondents nowhere prescribed any condition of retaining the documents after completion of course, as per Instructions Booklet issued by them for the Academic Session 2019, while granting admission to the petitioners in PG Course. (b) The respondents nowhere prescribed any condition of retaining the documents after completion of course, as per Instructions Booklet issued by them for the Academic Session 2019, while granting admission to the petitioners in PG Course. (c) The original documents of the petitioners are valuable documents and the same cannot be retained by the State Authorities, as neither the petitioners have executed a bond authorizing the State Authorities to retain the documents nor the documents can be kept as a surety for fulfilling the terms and conditions of the bond to serve the State Government for a period of two years. (d) The non fulfillment of any condition of bond executed by the petitioners may result into any other legal action which can be taken by the State Government, but as a bargain or as a bullwork, the State Authorities cannot retain the original documents of the petitioners. 28. Mr.M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State has made the following submissions:- 1. The conduct of the petitioners do not entitle them to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners once have executed a bond and undertook to serve the State Government for a minimum period of two years, any subsequent challenge to the execution of bond made by them, does not entitle them to any relief by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The bond which has been executed by the petitioners with the State Authorities, is not a statutory contract but an executive action and as such, the writ for enforcement of contract is not maintainable before this court. 3. No mandamus can be issued by this Court as the petitioners do not have any legal right and for issuance of writ of mandamus existence of a legal right is sine qua non. 4. The issue relating to execution of bond and retention of documents by the Authorities is no more res-integra and the relief sought by the petitioners since has already been declined by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in [ (2019)8 SCC 607 ], this Court cannot entertain any claim of the petitioner. 5. 5. The power of State Government to retain the documents in the event of non-performance of contract, is an ancillary power and the same has rightly been exercised by the State. 6. The retention of documents by the State is an implied condition of contract and as such, the petitioners are bound by the implied conditions of contract and they may not be allowed to raise any grievance in this respect. 7. The State has a legitimate expectation from the petitioners to serve the State Government, as the State Government has incurred hefty expenses in imparting education to the petitioners in the Government Medical Colleges at a very low fees and as such, the petitioners are bound to perform their part either by serving the State Government or by paying the amount which has been mentioned in the bond. 8. The State of Rajasthan since has provided infrastructure and good quality of medical education to the petitioners and negligible fees has been paid by them and considering the fees which is paid by the medical students for pursuing their Post Graduate Courses in the different private Universities, the State is well within its rights to insist for rendering services or to pay the requisite amount mentioned in the bond. 9. The State cannot be a mute spectator for not taking any action against the petitioners, if they have flouted the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them. 10. The State Government considering the requirement of providing health services to its own people, if has decided to utilize the services of Post Graduates Medical Students and persons with Super Speciality Course, by asking them to work on different posts, no illegality can be attached with such decision and it is the policy of the State Government to take services of the qualified persons as per its requirement. 11. The petitioners cannot be permitted to ask or seek a mandamus to give them appointment as per their educational qualification only and the insistence of the petitioners to offer them appointment as per their qualification, cannot be accepted by the State Government and the State being a service provider, has to keep in mind the different parameters for utilizing the services of the Post Graduate Medical Students. 12. 12. The State considering its own resources has taken a policy decision to utilise the services of different eligible candidates including the petitioners and no arbitrariness can be found in such a decision. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Vigyan Shah and Ms.Purvit Mathur has placed reliance on the following judgments :- 1. Dr. R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma reported in [ (2000)7 SCC 264 ]. 2. Dr.Arjun Saili v. Union of India reported in [(2021) SCC Online Del 4212] 3. S. Giridharan v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [(2022) SCC Online Mad 2394] 4. Monika v. PT B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences reported in [(2022) SCC Online P&H 1890] 5. Dipesh Kumar Padhihari v. Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital & Ors. passed by the Orissa High Court in W.P. (C) No.20027/2020] 6. S. Saravana Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madurai Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.18930/2022. 7. Association Of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents & Ors. v. Union of India reported in [ (2019) 8 SCC 607 ]. 8. State of Tamil Nadu, through its Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Another v. P.S. Sairam & Ors. in [2020 SCC Online Mad 2742]. 9. Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr. reported in [ (2003)7 SCC 197 ]. 10. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Board v. B.S.S. Parihar & Ors. reported in [ (2015)14 SCC 130 ]. 11. State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Brahmutra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi & Anr. reported in [2020 SCC Online 968]. 12. Zahoor Ahmad rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in [ (2019) 2 SCC 404 ]. 13. Krishna Rai (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Banaras Hindu University through its Registrar & Ors. reported in [2022 SCC Online 750]. 14. Dr.Vinod Shankarlal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra reported in [(2012) 114 (6) Bom LR 4020]. 15. Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. No.28526/2021 decided on 19.01.2022. 16. Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A. No.1182/2022 decided on 27.04.2022. 17. S. Kumaresh v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.17338/2022 decided on 04.08.2022. 18. K. Swathika & Anr. 16. Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A. No.1182/2022 decided on 27.04.2022. 17. S. Kumaresh v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.17338/2022 decided on 04.08.2022. 18. K. Swathika & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.16576/2022 decided on 28.07.2022. 19. Dr. S. Sam Nelson & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.9821/2022 decided on 19.05.2022. 20. G. Bhargava Phani Krishna & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.14112/2022 decided on 05.07.2022. 21. Monil Prakash Chand Thakkar v. State of Gujarat reported in [ (2014) 3 GLH 481 ]. 22. Nidhi Kishanbhai Vasava v. Dean-Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society reported in [2014 SCC Online Guj 8724]. 23. Shireen M.T. v. State of Kerala reported in [2017 SCC OnLine Ker 2660]. Mr.M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following judgments :- 1. Director of Settlements A.P. and Others v. M.R. Apparao and Another reported in [(2002)4 SCC 638]. 2. State of M.P. and Others v. Gopal D. Tirthani And Others reported in [ (2003)7 SCC 83 ]. 3. Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in [ (2016)11 SCC 113 . 4. Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in [ (2019)8 SCC 607 ]. 5. Union of India and Another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. reported in [ (1990)4 SCC 453 ]. 6. Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in [ (2008)2 SCC 409 ]. 7. The Union of India v. M/s. D.N. Revri and Co. and Others reported in [ (1976)4 SCC 147 ]. 8. DLF Universal Limited and Another VS. Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and Others reported in [ (2010)14 SCC 1 ]. 9. Ram Pravesh Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in [ (2006)8 SCC 381 ]. 10. Satya Jain (Dead) Through LRs. and Others v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) through LRs. and Others reported in [ (2013)8 SCC 131 ]. 11. Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and Others reported in [ (2010)14 SCC 1 ]. 9. Ram Pravesh Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in [ (2006)8 SCC 381 ]. 10. Satya Jain (Dead) Through LRs. and Others v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) through LRs. and Others reported in [ (2013)8 SCC 131 ]. 11. Reliance Telecom Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another reported in [ (2017)4 SCC 269 ]. 12. Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in [ (2021)6 SCC 568 ]. 13. Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in [ (2012)2 SCC 108 ]. 14. R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others v. Ajit Mills Limited and Another reported in [ (1977)4 SCC 98 ]. 30. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 31. This Court is required to consider the first issue raised by the petitioners relating to not offering them the post/job according to their qualifications. 32. This Court finds that the State Government has issued an order dated 12.07.2022, whereby it consolidated and amended the previous orders relating to execution of bond of five years by the Post Graduate Medical students and candidates who pass Super Speciality course. 33. 32. This Court finds that the State Government has issued an order dated 12.07.2022, whereby it consolidated and amended the previous orders relating to execution of bond of five years by the Post Graduate Medical students and candidates who pass Super Speciality course. 33. The order dated 12.07.2022 is quoted as hereunder :- jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk dzekad iŒ 786@lh,e@,p,e@ctV@Mh,ebZ@,dsM@2015@8000 t;iqj] fnukad 12-07-2022 vkns'k jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ djus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa ls orZeku esa dkslZ iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr 5 o"kZ jktdh; lsok djus gsrq 25 yk[k :i;s jkf'k dk lsok cU/ki= Hkjok;k tkrk gSA mijksDr lsok cU/ki= dh vof/k] jkf'k ,oa ykxw djus dh izfØ;k ds ckjs esa iwoZ esa le;≤ ij tkjh leLr funsZ'kksa dks lesfdr ,oa la'kksf/kr djrs gq;s fuEukuqlkj vkns'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%& 1- jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ls LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ djus ds mijkar lHkh Nk=@Nk=kvksa ls jkT; esa jktdh; lsok nh tkuh visf{kr gSA orZeku esa bl gsrq 05 o"kZ dh vof/k dks ?kVk;k tkdj bls 02 o"kZ fd;k tkrk gSA cU/ki= dh jkf'k iwokZuqlkj 25 yk[k :i;sa gh jgsaxhA rn~uqlkj 'kS{kf.kd l= 2022&23 esa jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ esa izos'k ysus okys Nk=@Nk=kvksa ls 02 o"kZ dh jktdh; lsok iznku djus gsrq 25 yk[k :i;sa dk lsok cU/ki= izkIr fd;k tkosaA 2- jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ esa orZeku esa v/;;ujr Nk=@Nk=kvksa gsrq Hkh mijksDr cU/ki= vof/k dks 02 o"kZ fd;k tkrk gSA 3- LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ gksus ij Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks 02 o"kZ ds fy;s jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu fuEukuqlkj fofHkUu inksa ij jktdh; lsok nsus gsrq cU/ki= dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj ck/; fd;k tk ldrk gS%& 1- fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lhfu;j jsftMsUV 2- fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d vkpk;Z lhfu;j jsftMsUVf'ki iw.kZ djus ds i'pkr~ 3- fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa twfu;j jsftMsUV@lhfu;j MseksLVsVj 4- fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx v/khu fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izfro"kZ jktdh; esfMdy dkWystksa ls iklvkmV LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslsZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa dh lwpuk funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk }kjk dkslZ lekIr ls iw.kZ ;Fkk le; lkekU;r% 02 ekg iwoZ] izkIr dh tk;saxhA 4- funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk }kjk bu iklvkmV gksus okys Nk=@Nk=kvksa ls cU/ki= dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ds fy;s fjDr inksa dh lwpuk lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa funs'kky; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok;sa ls dkslZ lekIr gksus ds 02 ekg iwoZ izkIr dh tk;saxhA 5- jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ,oa fpfdRlky;ksa esa mijksDrkuqlkj fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq izkFkfedrk dk fu/kkZj.k Hkh funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk }kjk le{k Lrj ls vuqefr izkIr dj fd;k tkosxkA vFkkZr funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk ;g fofuf'pr djsxk fd miyC/k vH;kfFkZ;ksa esa ls bu inksa esa ls dkSu&dkSu ls dks loksZPp izkFkfedrk ls Hkjk tkuk gSA ;g rkRdfyd vko';drkvksa ;Fkk&fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa jk"Vh; esfMdy vk;ksx ds ekin.Mkuqlkj inksa ij fu;qfDr] fjDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUæ] lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUæ ij inLFkkiu djus dh vko';drk vkfn ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosaxkA 6- mijksDrkuqlkj fjDr inksa ij inLFkkiu gsrq LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslsZ mRrh.kZ gks jgs Nk=@Nk=kvksa ls fodYi izkIr fd;s tk;saxsA Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks uhV ijh{kk esa mudh jsUd ds vk/kkj ij eSfjV dk fu/kkZj.k djrs gq;s eSfjV ds vk/kkj ij fodYi vuqlkj fu;qfDr iznku dh tkosaxhA 7- bl lEiw.kZ izfØ;k dks lEikfnr djus ds fy;s fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk dkmfUlfyax cksMZ dk xBu fd;k tkosaxkA tks bl izfØ;k dks lEikfnr dj vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds inLFkkiu gsrq vfHk'ka'kk funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk dks izLrqr djsaxkA mijksDr vfHk'kalk ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr vkns'k lacaf/kr fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh ;Fkk&iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d] esfMdy dkWyst] funs'kd] tuLokLF; vFkok vU; l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s tkosxsA 8- fofHkUu fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa vFkok fpfdRlk ,oa LokF; esa fjDr inksa dh lwph] la[;k dk fu/kkZj.k djrs le; jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k dk Hkh /;ku j[krs gq;s fofHkUu vkjf{kr oxksZ ds fy;s jkT; ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj lhV vkjf{kr dh tkosaxh ,oa bu vkjf{kr lhVksa ij lacaf/kr vkjf{kr oxZ ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr iznku dh tkoasxhA 9- LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslsZ iw.kZ djus ds mijkar lhfu;j jsftMsUV ds in ij fu;qDr gksus okys vH;kFkhZ 01 lky dh vof/k iw.kZ gksus ij fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; esa lgk;d vkpk;Z ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq ;ksX; gks tkrs gSA mUgsa vkxkeh o"kZ dh dkmUlfyax esa Hkkx ysdj lgk;d vkpk;Z ds in ij ;wVhch ij dk;Z djus dk volj iznku fd;k tkosaxkA 10- dksbZ Nk=@Nk=k mijksDrkuqlkj cU/ki= esa jktdh; lsok nsus ds fy;s bPNqd ugh gS rks og fu/kkZfjr cU/ki= jkf'k tek djokdj og cU/ki= ls eqDr gks ldrk gSA 11- ;fn LukrdksÙkj dkslZ djus okys fdlh Nk=@Nk=k dk vkxkeh o"kZ gsrq lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ esa p;u gks tkrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mls lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ djus ds mijkar 02 o"kZ dh jktdh; lsok iznku djus dk cU/ki= fy;k tkdj mijksDr lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslsZ djus gsrq vuqer fd;k tk ldsaxkA 12- lacaf/kr vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds ewy nLrkost mijksDr 02 o"kZ dh jktdh; lsok vof/k iw.kZ djus ds mijkar lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; }kjk fjfyt fd;s tk;saxsA bl gsrq muds }kjk iznku dh xbZ jktdh; lsok ds ckjs esa izek.k&i= lacaf/kr fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA mijksDr izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij 02 o"kZ dh jktdh; lsok dk lR;kiu fd;k tkdj lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; }kjk muds ewy nLrkost vH;kFkhZ dks ykSVk fn;s tkoasxsA ;fn vH;kFkhZ lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ esa p;fur gksrk gS ,oa mls bu f'k{k.k laLFkkuksa esa ewy nLrkost dh vko'drk gksrh gS rks lacaf/kr laLFkku lh/ksa gh ewy nLrkost lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; dks fHktok;sxkA tgka ij vH;kFkhZ }kjk lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ gsrq izos'k fy;k tk jgk gSA 13- ;s vkns'k jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk Hkfo"; esa jktesl ds v/khu lapkfyr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa izkjEHk gksus okys LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ ij Hkh ykxw gksaxsA 14- dkmfUlfyax izfØ;k dks lEikfnr djus ds fy;s 'kh?kz vkWuykbZu flLVe dks funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk }kjk fodflr fd;k tkosaxkA ;g vkns'k jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa] jktesl fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ,oa vkj;w,p,l fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa 'kS{kf.kd l= 2019&20 ,oa mijkar izos'k djus okys LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa ij ykxw gksxkA mDr vkns'k l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gSA oSHko xkyfj;k izeq[k 'kklu lfpo 34. This Court on perusal of order dated 12.07.2022 finds that the State Government reduced the period of rendering 5 years of compulsory service and the same was changed/replaced to two years for not only the students who are to be granted admission in the Session 2022-23 but the same was also made applicable to the candidates, who had been granted admission in the Government Medical Colleges and the Medical Colleges run by Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Raj-MES) from the Session 2019-2020 onwards. The amount of bond was kept at the same level of Rs.25 Lakh. 35. This Court finds that the State Government has decided to offer the job to the Medical Post Graduates and the candidates from Super Speciality Course, for a term of two years on the post of Senior Resident in Medical College, Assistant Professor (after completion of Senior Residentship) in Medical Colleges, Junior Resident/Senior Demonstrator in the Government Medical College. 36. This Court further finds that the Director of Medical Education has been directed to collect the relevant information of the candidates from the different Government Medical colleges well in advance i.e. two months, before completion of their course. 37. The Director Medical Education was also to ensure about the priority of all the posts to be filled and clause (6) of the said order specifically provided that the posting/appointment of the candidates who have passed out, will be made as per merit on the basis of option offered by them and merit of the candidates will be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by them in NEET and their rank. 38. This Court further finds that Clause (10) of the said order specifically provided that those candidates who were not interested in rendering their services in the Government, as per condition of bond, such candidates were required to deposit the bond amount and then they were to be set free from terms of the bond. 39. This Court finds that clause (12) of the said order makes a reference of releasing the original documents after completion of two years of service. 40. 39. This Court finds that clause (12) of the said order makes a reference of releasing the original documents after completion of two years of service. 40. This Court finds that the State Government while asking the petitioners to execute a service bond/undertaking, had contained a condition that the candidates were to serve the Government for a minimum period of five years after completion of the course, if the Government desired (such condition has been reduced from 5 years to 2 years). The State Government by offering the posts of Senior Resident/Assistant Professor/Junior Resident/Senior Demonstrator, has kept in mind the requirement of different Post Graduate Degrees of candidates and the candidates with Super Speciality Course and as such, the policy decision of the State Government is to provide appointments to the petitioners to serve the State Government on these different posts. 41. This Court finds that the petitioners who have acquired the qualification of MBBS and Post Graduation, have not been asked to work on any post which can be termed as not having any relevance for the job, which the petitioners are now asked to do by the State Government. 42. This Court further finds that if the State has to keep in mind assignment of duties to the different skilled and qualified candidates and while providing health service to its citizens at different level i.e. from rural area/urban area, the different contingencies are kept in mind for providing health service to the people and in the said endeavour if the State Government decides that candidates who have acquired Post Graduate qualification or Super Speciality Course, such candidates should be asked to work on different available posts, no arbitrariness or fault can be found with such a decision. 43. This Court is conscious of the fact that the different Primary Health Centres, Community Health Centres, Satellites Hospital, Referral Hospitals, District Level Hospitals, Hospitals at big town require the skilled Doctors and the candidates who have passed their MBBS Course and have further acquired qualification of Post Graduate, need to work and render their service, as the State has valid expectation from these candidates to pay back to the society and to work for public at large. 44. The candidates cannot be permitted to take a U-turn and raise grievance that the job offered to them does not commensurate with their qualification. 45. 44. The candidates cannot be permitted to take a U-turn and raise grievance that the job offered to them does not commensurate with their qualification. 45. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that if petitioners are asked to work as Junior Resident or Medical Officer, the same would amount to working on the post requiring qualification of only a Graduate i.e. MBBS, is absolutely baseless and the same needs to be rejected by this Court. The qualification of Post Graduate or Super Speciality Course, will not result into declaring the petitioners ineligible to discharge the duties of rendering health services to the citizens of this Country. 46. This Court on the contrary finds that if candidates with better skill or higher qualification are available for serving the people of this Country, the aim of rendering good health service to the needy persons will be better fulfilled in more effective way. 47. This Court, is at loss to understand, as how the petitioners can be permitted to raise a grievance that order dated 12.07.2022 has been made effective retrospectively and the same should not have been applied to the petitioners as they were admitted in the Session 2019-2020. 48. This Court further finds that the earlier, at the time of executing bond in the session 2019-2020, the petitioners had agreed to serve the State Government for a term of five years and now the State Government has reduced the period of bond of serving the State for a period of two years and the same will in fact, result into lowering down the stringent condition which was imposed earlier and in fact, the order dated 12.07.2022 operates in favour of the petitioners instead of treating the same to be prejudicial to their interest. 49. This Court further finds that during pendency of the writ petition, the State Government has amended the order dated 12.07.2022 by an order dated 27.09.2022. 49. This Court further finds that during pendency of the writ petition, the State Government has amended the order dated 12.07.2022 by an order dated 27.09.2022. The order dated 27.09.2022 is quoted as hereunder:- jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk Øekad iaŒ 786@lh,e@,p,e@ctV@Mh,ebZ@,dsM@2015@4081 fnukad 27-09-2022 vkns'k jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ls LukrdksRrj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjok;s tkus okys jktdh; lsok djus ds cU/ki= dks ykxw djus ds Øe esa tkjh funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk ds vkns'k Øekad iaŒ 786@lh,e@,p,e@ctV@Mh,ebZ@,dsM@2015@8000 fnukad 12-07-2022 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq;s fuEukuqlkj vfrfjDr vkns'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%& 1- LukrdksRrj ,oa lqij Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ gksus ij Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks nks o"kZ ds fy;s jkT; ljdkj@jktesl ds v/khu izkFkfedrk ls fuEukuqlkj fuEu inksa ij jktdh; lsok nsus gsrq cU/k&i= dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj ck/; fd;k tk ldsxk%& 1 fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lhfu;j jsftMsUV 2 fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d vkpk;Z czkWM Lisf'k;fyVh ds Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks lhfu;j jsftMsUVf'ki iw.kZ djus ds i'pkr 3 fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds v/khu dfu"B fo'ks"kK 4 LukrdksRrj ;ksX;rk ds vuq:i vU; dksbZ in 2- lsok cU/k&i= ds v/khu LukrdksRrj@lqij Lisf'k;fyVh esa v/;;u iw.kZ djus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh lsok;s vuqcU/k ds vk/kkj ij ^^LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd** (Post Graduate Medical Consultant) ds vuq:i esa ,d fuf'pr ekfld ikfjJfed ij vuqcU/k ij yh tk;sxhA 3- LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dks izFke o"kZ dh lsok ds fy;s 85 :i;s izfrekg ,oa f}rh; o"kZ dh lsok ds fy;s 90 gtkj :i;s izfrekg ikfjJfed (Fixed Remuneration) ns; gksxkA 4- fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk xfBr dkmfUlfyax cksMZ }kjk dkmfUlfyax ds le; lacaf/kr foHkkx ;Fkk&fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx@fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx }kjk nh x;h fjDr inksa dh lwpuk ds vuqlkj fjDr inksa ds fo:) LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd ds inksa ds fy;s bu vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds fodYi fy;s tkdj lhV vkoafVr dh tk;sxhA 5- LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dks mudh ik=rk ds vuq:i lgk;d vkpk;Z@lhfu;j jsftMsUV@dfu"B fo'ks"kK vFkok LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ;ksX;rk ds vuq:i vU; dksbZ in ij lsok iznku djus gsrq fu;qDr fd;k tk ldsxkA 6- fof'k"B ifjfLFkfr;ksa ;Fkk&oSf'od vkink tSls&dksfoM] izkdfrd vkink] ck<+] lw[kk vkfn vFkok lhfu;j jsftMsUV@lgk;d vkpk;Z@dfu"B fo'ks"kK ds leLr fjDr inksa dks miyC/k djokus ds ckotwn cU/k&i= ds vuq:i miyC/k vH;kFkhZ vf/kd gksus ij jkT; ljdkj bUgsa fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh@twfu;j jsftMsUV ds in ds fo:) Hkh fu;qfDr iznku djus ij fopkj dj ldrh gSA 7- dkmfUlfyax izfØ;k ds nkSjku LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dh lhVksa lhfu;j jftMsUV@lgk;d vkpk;Z@dfu"B fo'ks"kK dk fodYi esfMdy dkWyst okj@ftys okj miyC/k djk;k tk;sxkA ;fn vH;kFkhZ dks eSfjV de PokWbl ds vk/kkj ij LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd lhfu;j jsftMsUV vFkok lgk;d vkpk;Z dk in@lhV vkoafVr gksrh gS rks lacaf/kr vH;kFkhZ dh lsok;s lacaf/kr esfMdy dkWyst ds iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d ds v/khu gksxh ,oa muds }kjk gh fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k tkosxk rFkk vuqcU/k gLrk{kfjr djok;k tk;sxkA ;fn vH;FkhZ dks eSfjV de PokWbl ds vk/kj ij LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dfu"B fo'ks"kK in@lhV vkoafVr gksrh gS rks lacaf/kr ftys ds eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh }kjk fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k tkdj fpfdRlky; vkoafVr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa vuqcU/k gLrk{kfjr djok;k tk;sxkA 8- ftu inksa ij vH;kFkhZ fu;ksftr fd;s tk;sxs] ml in ij fu;fer vH;kFkhZ inLFkkfir fd;s tkus ij mDr vH;kFkhZ dks vU; in ij fu;ksftr fd;k tk ldsxk vFkok lsok ls eqDr fd;k tk ldsxkA 9- vuqcU/k vof/k esa izfro"kZ vf/kdre 15 fnol dk vkdfLed vodk'k ns; gksxkA vkdfLed vodk'k izfr iw.kZekl ij vftZr gksxsA 10- efgyk LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dks vuqcU/k vof/k esa dsoy ,d ckj ds fy;s vf/kdre 180 fnol ds fy;s izlwfr vodk'k Hkh ns; gksxkA 11- mDr fu;kstu ,d ckj esa ,d o"kZ ds fy;s fd;k tk;sxk] rRi'pkr eSfjV de PokWbl ds vk/kkj ij iqu% fu;kstu vFkok fu;kstu vof/k esa o`f) vFkok uohu ik=rk ,d o"kZ lhfu;j jsftMsUV gksus ij uohu in ij fu;kstu fd;k tk;sxkA 12- lsok cU/k&i= ds v/khu fu;ksftr vH;FkhZ LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dgyk;sxkA ysfdu vH;FkhZ }kjk ftl izd`fr dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS mlh ds vuq:i dk;Z vuqHko izek.k&i= fn;k tk;sxk tSls vH;FkhZ }kjk lhfu;j jsftMsUV ds in ds vuq:i lsok;s nh xbZ rks dk;kZuqHko izek.k&i= lhfu;j jsftMsUV dk tkjh fd;k tkosxkA ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx dh vkbZMh la[;k 132200165 fnukad 22-09-2022 ds vuqlj.k esa tkjh fd;s tkrs gSA oSHko xkyfj;k izeq[k 'kklu lfpo 50. This Court on perusal of order dated 27.09.2022 finds that now the candidates with Post Graduation Degree and Super Speciality course, will be asked to work as per the terms and conditions of the bond on the post of Senior Resident/Assistant Professor in College/Junior Specialists in Medical Health Department and on any other post as per Post Graduate qualification. 51. This Court finds that the apprehension which is raised by the petitioners and they feel aggrieved against the order dated 27.09.2022 of offering them the post not commensurating with their qualification, now stands allayed. The post of Junior Resident or Senior Demonstrator does not find any place, in the new order. 52. This Court, considering the different clauses, of the order dated 27.09.2022 finds that now the candidates would be called 'Post Graduate Medical Consultant' and they will be offered fixed remuneration and their appointments will be made on the basis of merit cum choice and in certain contingencies like the COVID-19, natural calamities and etc., the candidates can also be asked to work on the post of Medical Officer/Junior Resident. 53. This Court finds that the State Government after taking into account the relevant factors if has come out with amended order dated 27.09.2022, no arbitrariness can be attached to such decision and it is the domain of the State Government to make use of its work force of the candidates to whom, medical education has been imparted at subsidized fees. 54. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been violation of different service regulations and as such, the State Government by introducing such mechanism may be held guilty of violating the mandatory provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963, the said contention of counsel for the petitioners is noted to be rejected. 55. 55. This Court finds that the State Government has not been making any regular appointment on substantive post and further the State Government has been engaging the students/ candidates who have passed their Post Graduate/Super Speciality Course and the State in no way intends to employee these candidates on a permanent basis and in fact this is an obligation which the petitioners are required to discharge for rendering their services in view of condition which has been agreed by them. The State Government while asking the petitioners to work, is also paying them fixed remuneration and as such, in absence of any regular recruitment being made, it cannot be pleaded before the Court that the respondents-State is guilty of violating any provisions of the statutory service Rules. 56. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government being model employer cannot be permitted to force the petitioners to work in the garb of execution of any bond and the same results into misuse of talent and skill of the petitioners, this Court finds that the State Government if considering the relevant factors of providing health service to its citizens, has decided to ask the candidates to work as consultant, no arbitrariness or impropriety can be attached to such decision. The allegation of not having proper infrastructure to utilize the skill of the petitioners, is also wholly baseless. 57. This Court finds that the petitioners if have been offered job by the State Government to render their services in Hospitals to treat the patients who come in different Hospitals at different level, the State Government with its limited resources, if has decided to provide health service to the different people, the plea of lack of infrastructure cannot be accepted by this Court. 58. This Court finds that acquiring a qualification is indeed essential for the Doctors to render their service in a proper manner. This Court further feels that the skill and talent which has been acquired by a candidate on account of good infrastructure provided by the State Authorities, he/she needs to pay back to the society and further the right to health of people should be given effect by rendering these services by skilled people. 59. This Court further feels that the skill and talent which has been acquired by a candidate on account of good infrastructure provided by the State Authorities, he/she needs to pay back to the society and further the right to health of people should be given effect by rendering these services by skilled people. 59. The self interest is to bend before the interest of public at large and duty of a candidate towards society cannot be lost sight of, only on account of getting higher qualification. 60. This Court further finds that acquisition of qualification makes the person eligible and skilled for higher avenues including getting the job, however, the same would not confer any indefeasible right to claim that such person should be given a right to work on the post or on the assignments, only on account of his acquiring qualification. 61. This Court finds that the petitioners have done their MBBS Course and they have further acquired Post Graduate Medical course and as such, if they are asked to work in the same field by rendering their services, no plea can be accepted by this Court that the talent of the petitioners is being misused or the same results into a national wastage. 62. The second important issue raised by the petitioners is with regard to not following the order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022 and Walk-in Interviews conducted by giving appointment to the persons, who were having lower marks/rank in NEET PG Examination, right of the petitioners being violated while offering the job on the post decided by the State in its wisdom. 63. This Court finds that the order dated 12.07.2022 had provided the mechanism and the procedure as how appointments were to be made. This Court finds that the responsibility was given to the Directorate of Medical Education to collect the relevant information from different Medical colleges about the candidates well in advance before two months of completing the course and further the appointments were to be offered by a State Level Counselling Board. The State Level Counselling Board was also constituted by an order of the State Government dated 22.07.2022. 64. The State Level Counselling Board was also constituted by an order of the State Government dated 22.07.2022. 64. This Court further finds that the criterion for giving appointment to the candidates was on the basis of ranking of the candidates in the NEET PG and merit list was to be prepared on the basis of merit and option, which was to be given by the candidates. 65. This Court finds that the order dated 12.07.2022 was implemented by issuing an order dated 22.07.2022 and further, the amended order was issued on 27.09.2022 and the criterion for appointing the candidates was not changed and as such, this Court does not find any power of the Competent Authority to conduct Walk-in Interviews or appointment to be given by different Medical Colleges at their own level. 66. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the different Medical Colleges by holding selections at their own level and offering appointment to the less meritorious candidates, have violated their own orders. 67. This Court finds that once the State Government had constituted a State Level Selection Board and further, had issued a notification dated 04.08.2022 to the different candidates to upload their details on the website and such candidates were required to fill the online application form, any deviation by the State Authorities is not permitted and as such, exercise undertaken by different Colleges on their own without any competence, is declared illegal and bad in the eye of law. 68. This Court finds that if the State Government has issued the orders for asking the different candidates to work as per terms of the bond, then on the same analogy, the State Government is also bound to adhere to its own decision by following a proper method of giving appointment/job to the different candidates including the petitioners on the basis of criterion which has been fixed and adopted by them. 69. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the right to equality has been violated in the present case, as some of the petitioners who have higher merit and also subjected themselves before the Authorities for their selection, such petitioners were not found suitable and other candidates with lesser marks in NEET rank, have been selected. 70. This Court finds that the State Government or their 71. 70. This Court finds that the State Government or their 71. Authorities are not in any way authorized to proceed in the matter beyond the decision which was taken to fill the different posts as per the merit to be prepared on a criterion already fixed. Such kind of exercise by the State or its different Authorities has rightly given a cause of concern to the meritorious candidates and as such, the action of the respondents cannot be approved by this Court. 72. The third issue raised by the petitioners is with regard to retention of their original documents and not releasing the same until they served the State Government or they pay the requisite amount. 73. This Court before dealing with the aforesaid issue would like to take into account the facts which are available on record. 74. This Court finds that at the time of admission of the petitioners, the instructions booklet was issued, wherein several conditions were prescribed about eligibility and other requirements etc. The instructions booklet had also given the schedule for holding the counselling and thereafter, requiring the candidates to join and report at the allotted Colleges. The list of documents were to be deposited at the time of reporting and surety bond, as per proforma annexed was one of the documents which was to be deposited at the time of reporting. The selected candidates were also required to deposit a surety bond of Rs.5 Lakhs at the time of reporting and students were to fill a bond amounting to Rs.25 Lakhs as per bond format, however, the Information Booklet had nowhere provided that the original documents which were to be deposited will not be returned back to the candidates, if they did not pay the bond amount. 75. This Court, on further reading of the clauses of the bond/undertaking given by the petitioners as filed in the present writ petitions as Annexures, finds that the bond condition had only inserted a covenant that the student and his/her surety were jointly and severally bound to pay Government of Rajasthan Rs.25 Lakh and the candidate who failed to serve the State Government for a minimum period of five year (now reduced to Rs.2 years) on failing to fulfill such condition, was to pay Rs.25 Lakh as penalty as per bond/undertaking. 76. 76. This Court finds that the said bond condition nowhere provided that if the candidate or his surety failed to serve the State Government for a period of two years then his original documents will not be released and the same will be retained by the State Government. 77. This Court considering the instructions which were issued at the relevant time in the Session 2019-2020 and the conditions contained in the undertaking, nowhere finds that retention of original documents was any condition which was imposed by the State Government. 78. This Court further finds that the original documents of any candidate/student are very valuable and individual property of them and retention of these documents on the pretext of not executing the terms of the bond, cannot be permitted by the Court. 79. This Court finds that the original documents cannot be treated as security for any allegedly due payment of money, thus retention of original documents as a security, is not sustainable in law. 80. This Court further finds that the original documents (certificates) of the students are their individual property and no institution can retain the same without lawful Authority. 81. This Court finds that the respondents have acted illegally in retaining the original documents of the petitioners and as such, their such action deserves, to be declared bad and illegal. 82. This Court finds that the Delhi High Court, Madras High Court, Orissa High Court have taken a similar view and has deprecated the practice of retaining the documents by the State Authorities. 83. The submission of learned Advocate General that conduct of the petitioners do not make them entitled for grant of equitable relief, this Court finds that the respondents have retained the original documents of the petitioners and as such, petitioners' valuable right has been violated and as such, it cannot be held that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 84. 84. The contention of learned Advocate General that writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the petitioners do not have any legal right and existence of a legal right is a sine qua non for issuing a writ of mandamus, this Court finds that the retention of original documents of any candidate, would result into violating his/her right to own and posses original documents, which are valuable and have importance in order to prove the qualification possessed by a person and as such, writ of mandamus can be issued by the Court for enforcement of such right of a candidate. 85. The submission of learned Advocate General that the respondents have taken an executive action and the bond executed by petitioners, is not a statutory contract and writ for enforcement of contract is not maintainable, the said contention of learned Advocate General is noted to be rejected. The petitioners in the instant petitions have prayed that the bond/undertaking given by the petitioners, nowhere stipulated that the State Authorities will have power to retain the original documents and if an arbitrary decision is taken by the State, the writ of mandamus would lie. This Court finds no substance in the submission of learned Advocate General that these writ petitions have been filed for the enforcement of contract and as such, not maintainable. 86. The submission of learned Advocate General that the issue of retention of documents by the Authorities in valid manner, is no more res integra in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the different petitions were filed before the Apex Court and orders were challenged of the different High Courts and the Apex Court upheld the right of the State Government to ask for execution of bond to serve the State Government. 87. (supra), this Court finds that the different petitions were filed before the Apex Court and orders were challenged of the different High Courts and the Apex Court upheld the right of the State Government to ask for execution of bond to serve the State Government. 87. The submission of learned Advocate General that specific prayer was made before the Apex Court in SLP asking the Apex Court to give direction to the different Authorities to return the original documents, marksheets/certificates etc and the prayer made since was not granted, should be deemed to be rejected, this Court finds that the Apex Court while upholding the power of the State Government to prescribe a mandatory condition of execution of bond, nowhere dealt with the issue of power of retention of original documents by the Authorities. 88. The submission of learned Advocate General that if any issue is raised before the Apex Court and the relief is declined on the same issue, it should be treated as a precedent and as such, the petitioners may not be permitted to raise the issue again before this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that the Apex Court while deciding the controversy, dismissed all the writ petitions and appeals filed before it and all the Doctors who had executed the compulsory bonds were to be bound by the conditions contained therein (in bonds). 89. This Court, as discussed in earlier paragraphs, has found that no petitioner had executed a bond which contained the condition that in the eventuality of violating any condition of the bond, the original documents (certificates) of the petitioners would be retained and they will be released only after payment of Rs.25 Lakh and as such, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of learned Advocate General that the relief which is sought by the petitioners, cannot be granted by this Court. 90. The submission of learned Advocate General that power to retain the documents is an ancillary power and the same is also implied condition of a contract and as such, the petitioners are bound by the same, the said submission of learned Advocate General is liable to be rejected. The retention of documents cannot be treated as an ancillary power and same is also not implied condition of contract. 91. The retention of documents cannot be treated as an ancillary power and same is also not implied condition of contract. 91. The State Government if had asked the candidates/petitioners to execute a bond and surety was also undertaken of making payment of stipulated amount, if the persons did not serve the State for two years, the retention of documents from no stretch of imagination, can be an ancillary power or implied condition of contract. 92. The submission of learned Advocate General that the State has incurred heavy expenditure in providing infrastructure and good quality of medical education and further, very low fee has been charged and as such, the State Government has legitimate expectation from the petitioners to serve and insistence of rendering service or to pay the requisite amount may not be treated suffering from any illegality, this Court has already upheld the right of State to ask the candidates to render their services and as such, the right of the State to ask for execution of bond, has already been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra). 93. The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 94. However, this Court further finds that the Madras High Court subsequently in judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed in the case of Dr. N. Karthikeyan (supra) has allowed the return of original documents and the judgment of Single Bench has been upheld by judgment passed by Division Bench in the case of Dr. N. Karthikeyan (supra), dated 27.04.2022. 95. 94. However, this Court further finds that the Madras High Court subsequently in judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed in the case of Dr. N. Karthikeyan (supra) has allowed the return of original documents and the judgment of Single Bench has been upheld by judgment passed by Division Bench in the case of Dr. N. Karthikeyan (supra), dated 27.04.2022. 95. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment in the case of Laxminarain v. State and Others reported in [1982 WLN (UC) 305] relating to conduct of the party entitling relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that the facts of the said case related to execution of voluntary agreement by the petitioner to repay the loan to the Cooperative Bank and later on, he resiled from avoiding the same liability on legal technicality then this Court dismissed the writ petition as conduct of the petitioner was found to be dishonest, however, the said case has no application in the present facts of the case and in any manner, the conduct of the petitioners cannot be termed as dishonest. 96. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Ors. (supra) this Court finds that the same is in respect of the word 'forfeiture' and it should mean as a penalty for breach of a prohibitory direction. The Apex Court in the said case had considered the entries in Legislative list and held that all the ancillary and incidental powers are meant for enforcing fiscal legislation as punitive measure. The said judgment is of no relevance in the present controversy. 97. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of power of Authority to do something which includes incidental or implied powers to ensure the proper doing of a particular thing. The said case of the Apex Court was in respect of power and remedies available against improper investigation as per Sections 154(3), 156(3), 200 and 482 Cr.PC. The said case has no application at all in the present case and as such, is of no assistance to learned Advocate General. 98. The said case of the Apex Court was in respect of power and remedies available against improper investigation as per Sections 154(3), 156(3), 200 and 482 Cr.PC. The said case has no application at all in the present case and as such, is of no assistance to learned Advocate General. 98. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. (supra) this Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of Section 129- C(5) and (6) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Apex Court has held that the powers of Tribunal are limited and the power expressly or impliedly granted has to be within the bounds of jurisdiction. The said judgment is of no assistance to learned Advocate General to the learned Advocate General. 99. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The Union of India v. M/s. D.N. Revri and Co. and Others (supra) this Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of arbitration clause and a contract between the parties is to be interpreted to give efficacy to the contract rather than to invalidate it. The said judgment is of no relevance and of no assistance to the learned Advocate General. 100. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of DLF Universal Limited and Another (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, vis-a-vis, the powers under the Specific Relief Act and under the Contract Act. This Court finds that the Apex Court has considered the aspect of determining the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time of contract so formed and the joint intent of parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation. The said judgment is of no relevance in the present facts of the case. 101. The said judgment is of no relevance in the present facts of the case. 101. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. and Others (supra), is in respect of power of the High Court for issuance of writ of mandamus. The Apex Court in the said case has held restated the principle that power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but for 'any other purpose' as well and the said power is discretionary and no limits can be placed upon their discretion but the discretion is to be exercised on the recognized lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations. The Apex Court in the said case has nowhere restrained the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction if an arbitrary act is done by the State or its Authorities and the same results into violation of valuable right of citizen. The said judgment is of no assistance to the learned Advocate General. 102. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chand Gautam (supra) is in respect of considering the reservation in the matters of promotion and consequential seniority in public employment for SCs and STs. The Apex Court has also considered the scope of issuance of writ of mandamus, the said Authority again does not restrain the High Court from exercising the power of issuing a writ of mandamus against an arbitrary action of the State Authorities and as such, this judgment is of no help to learned Advocate General. 103. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on a judgment passed in the case of State of M.P. and Others (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of allocation of 20% seats for In-service candidates in PG Medical Course and the Apex Court has only observed that In-service candidates after attaining higher academic achievements, will be available to be posted for the rural areas and the State Government can ensure the service by obtaining a bond from the candidates. The said judgment only deals with an issue of allotment of 20% seats for In-service candidates and has no bearing in the present matter. 104. The said judgment only deals with an issue of allotment of 20% seats for In-service candidates and has no bearing in the present matter. 104. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others (supra), this Court finds that the same is in fact again reiteration by the Apex Court in respect of legislative competence of the States to make reservation for In-service Doctors in the State quota and further service by such candidates in the Rural, Tribal and Hilly areas is by way of executing the bonds. The said judgment of the Apex Court does not deal with the issue of retaining the original documents by the Authorities of the candidates and as such, no assistance can be taken from it. 105. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of Section 126 explanation (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further the words 'Unauthorised use of electricity', 'unauthorised use' has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has also observed that common sense view relating to the implication and impact of provisions is the relevant consideration for interpreting a term of document so as to achieve temporal proximity of the end result and another similar rule is the rule of practical interpretation. The said judgment is of no relevance and no assistance can be taken by learned counsel for the State. 106. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Satya Jain (Dead) through LRs. And Other (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the principle of business efficacy is invoked to read a term of agreement or contract to achieve the result or the consequence intended by the parties acting as prudent businessmen. The said judgment is of no relevance in the present facts of the case. 107. The said judgment is of no relevance in the present facts of the case. 107. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Limited and Another (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of principle of legitimate expectation and the Apex Court while considering the provisions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 has held that principle of legitimate expectation can never override public interest and when there is larger public interest, the question of legitimate expectation does not arise. The said case is of no relevance and of no assistance to learned Advocate General. 108. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pravesh Singh and Others (supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of considering the principle of legitimate expectation and it has been held not to be a legal right, it is an expectation of benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promised or established practice. The Apex Court further found that the legitimate expectation is not a right and is not enforceable and it is a concept fashioned by the Courts for judicial review of administrative action. The said judgment is of no assistance to learned Advocate General. 109. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Mohit Jain and Others v. Armed Forces Medical College and Others in [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1667] deals with a situation where a candidate who was admitted in the year 2014- 15 and after completing the course, he had filed the writ petition, the said judgment does not lay down any law that a candidate against whose illegal action has been taken by the respondents by retaining the documents, then he cannot file the writ petition. 110. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General in the case of Dr.Vishnu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3000/2011 and other writ petitions, is in respect of depositing the amount as per surety bond. 110. The reliance placed by learned Advocate General in the case of Dr.Vishnu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3000/2011 and other writ petitions, is in respect of depositing the amount as per surety bond. This Court in the aforesaid case found that if petitioner had furnished the bond, his admission in the PG Course, then he should have raised the grievance immediately after submitting the bond and further if the Course was left in between by the candidate, the condition of furnishing the surety bond, was found to be valid by the Court. The said case is of no assistance to learned Advocate General. 111. The upshot of above discussion is as follows:- 1. The impugned order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022 do not suffer from any illegality. 2. The prayer of the petitioners to offer them job commensurating with their qualification, is not accepted. 3. The action of the State Government of violating its own order dated 12.07.2022 and subsequent notification dated 04.08.2022, is not approved by this Court. 4. The respondents-State would proceed to appoint the petitioners and other eligible candidates, as per the terms and conditions of preparing the merit as per order dated 12.07.2022 on the basis of rank/merit- option of the candidates in NEET PG Examination. 5. The State Authorities will carry out the exercise of making appointment as per the Counselling Board constituted by them, by order dated 22.07.2022, as per the criteria laid down in order dated 12.07.2022 and reiterated in the order dated 27.09.2022. 6. The action of the respondents-State of retention of original documents of the petitioners is declared bad and the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to return the original documents of the petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Any appointment made in violation of the criterion laid down in the order dated 22.07.2022 is declared bad and the State Government is required to undertake denovo exercise of appointment, as per order dated 12.07.2022, notification dated 04.08.2022 and subsequent order dated 27.09.2022. 8. The respondents-State would be free to proceed in accordance with law for violation of any condition of bond or undertaking for effecting recovery of money against the petitioners. 112. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the light of above discussions. 8. The respondents-State would be free to proceed in accordance with law for violation of any condition of bond or undertaking for effecting recovery of money against the petitioners. 112. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the light of above discussions. No order as to costs. 113. A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected petition.