JUDGMENT: (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the delay condonation application (IA No.01 of 2023), delay condonation application is allowed, and the delay of 125 days is condoned. 2. In the present special appeal, the only short question for consideration is, whether the respondent, who has done MBBS course after taking the benefit of lower fee structure, was bound to give the bond of five years after completing the MBBS Course, and after doing the MBBS course, he did the MD course on his own level without taking the benefit of lower fee structure, and he gave a bond of three years. 3. The only question for consideration is whether both the bonds, one is of five years and another is three years, are to be implemented, or whether one bond for three years after MD course, is to be implemented. 4. Since the respondents- writ petitioners have taken the benefit of lower fee structure only in one course, i.e. MBBS course, both the bonds are not be implemented post completing the MD course, so the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition, and the petitioner is bound by the bond given at the time of MD course for period of three years, and for calculating this period of three years, the period spent after MBBS course has to be adjusted. 5. The appellant-department was aware about the fact that the respondents-writ petitioners have given one bond to do five years’ work in rural areas after completing MBBS course. However, when the respondents-writ petitioners got admission in MD course, the department consciously took a bond to serve for three years in rural areas. Hence, the second bond given at the time of MD course is to be now implemented. The respondents-writ petitioners are bound by the second bond given at the time of MD course for three years, and they are not required to serve for five years, as they were doing MD course without taking the benefit of lower fee structure. 6. It is not the case of the appellants that the second bond of three years was taken by mistake. 6. It is not the case of the appellants that the second bond of three years was taken by mistake. Hence, the respondents- writ petitioners were bound by the second bond of three years, and the first bond of five years could neither be added in the second bond of three years, nor could be made part of doing five years work after doing MD course. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.