Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 294 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Deepali Gupta

2024-05-01

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The State has come up in the appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-Deepali Gupta, has been allowed, and the College/Appellant has been asked to hand-over the original documents of the petitioner Km.Deepali Gupta. Further direction has been given to the College to return back the National Saving Certificates of the petitioner amounting to Rs.8.00 lakh deposited with the respondent no.4, within a period of three weeks. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had taken part in the preliminary examination held on 05.04.2009, against 15% seats of the All India Quota students. The Medical College, Haldwani, displayed on its board the fee of Rs.65,500/- per annum including Rs.15,000/- per annum as tuition fee. Respondent-Deepali Gupta, got admission in the classes started for the 1st semester MBBS from 01.08.2009. 3. Thereafter, the Government Order was issued by the State Government on 09.09.2009, asking students, who have been admitted on the basis of All India Pre-Medical Test quota, to give an affidavit to serve the State of Uttarakhand for a period of five years, failing which the students were required to deposit Rs.2,20,000/- per annum as tuition fee in place of Rs.15,000/- per annum. 4. Petitioner – Km.Deepali Gupta, on account of the ill health, on 29.09.2009 withdrew from the College, and left the college on 09.10.2009. A letter was sent to the College to return the original certificates. However, the petitioner’s father was asked to deposit Rs.7,96,000/-, by way of a draft payable at Haldwani in the name of respondent no.3/College. 5. The grievance of the petitioner-Deepali Gupta was that against 85% quota seats, which was to be filled up on the basis of Uttarakhand Pre-Medical Test, the conditions could regulate the admission granted to those students, who were against 85% seats on the basis of Uttarakhand Pre-Medical Test, and on the date of the admission, petitioner was governed by the conditions of the admission prevalent at the time of the admission i.e. on 01.08.2009. The State Government has issued Government Order on 09.09.2009, could not be applied in the case of the petitioner when she was leaving the Medical College, and she could not be compelled to give an undertaking to work for five years, and failing which she would pay Rs.2,20,000/-. The State Government has issued Government Order on 09.09.2009, could not be applied in the case of the petitioner when she was leaving the Medical College, and she could not be compelled to give an undertaking to work for five years, and failing which she would pay Rs.2,20,000/-. The writ petition was allowed by referring to the judgment reported in 2002 (1) SLR 314 ,”Anand S. Biji Vs. State of Kerala & others”, where it was held that it was not open to States to prescribe additional eligibility criteria for admission to the allottees against the 15% of All India Quota. Hence, the said writ petition was allowed by observing that the additional eligibility criteria could not be introduced by the State asking for an undertaking from the student belonging to 15% All India Quota to serve the State of Uttarakhand for a period of five years. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the Division Bench judgment given by this Court on 31.07.2019, where special appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand had been allowed, with a question for consideration was whether the Government Orders would be questioned by selected students for admission in MBBS course against 50% All India Quota. The appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand was allowed. While allowing the appeal, the Division Bench had observed that the prospectus issued by the Government Medical College, Haldwani had given the differential fee structure, and they were to execute the bond, and a fee of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- per annum was to be paid, and in case they choose not to execute the bond, they were required to pay the regular fee of Rs.2,20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- minus Rs.40,000/- per annum. 7. The Division Bench was examining the admissions made in the year 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. All these admissions were made pursuant to the issuing of the Government Orders dated 23.07.2008, 04.08.2008, 09.09.2009 and 23.05.2013. Since these conditions were part of the prospectus, the Division Bench has held as under:- “27. 7. The Division Bench was examining the admissions made in the year 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. All these admissions were made pursuant to the issuing of the Government Orders dated 23.07.2008, 04.08.2008, 09.09.2009 and 23.05.2013. Since these conditions were part of the prospectus, the Division Bench has held as under:- “27. Viewed from any angle, we find no illegality in the Government Orders prescribing (i) concessional fee for those who are willing to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, for a period of five years, after completion of their five years’ undergraduate medical course; and (ii) regular fees for those students who did not wish to exercise such an option. 28. While the respondents-writ petitioners cannot be compelled to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for a period of five years after they had completed their under-graduate course, they would, in case they wish not to render such services, be obligated to pay the regular fee of Rs. 2,20,000/- / Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum, as was being charged from all other students who were not willing to exercise such an option. 29. The order under appeal is set aside and all the Special Appeals are allowed. The appellants shall offer all the respondents-writ petitioners employment, to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, within six weeks from today. 30. In case the respondents-writ petitioners are willing to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, it is open to them to join duty in terms of the offer of employment to be made by the State Government. In case the respondents-writ petitioners do not wish to exercise such an option, and do not join duty within the time stipulated in the offer to be made by the appellants-State, it is open to the State Government to recover the differential fee amount, (i.e. Rs. 2,20,000 minus Rs. 15,000/- per annum for students who secured admission in the year 2011-12, and Rs. 4,00,000/- minus Rs. 40,000/- per annum for students who secured admission in the year 2013-14), along with interest at 18% per annum. 31. All the Special Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. No costs. 8. There was another Writ Petition (M/S) No.1845 of 2009, “Lokman Singh and others Vs. 4,00,000/- minus Rs. 40,000/- per annum for students who secured admission in the year 2013-14), along with interest at 18% per annum. 31. All the Special Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. No costs. 8. There was another Writ Petition (M/S) No.1845 of 2009, “Lokman Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, this writ petition was examining the admissions made in the session 2009, as in the present case, the writ petition was allowed and it was held by observing that the Government Order dated 09.09.2009, has no application, and it related to the students who were granted admission under All India Quota for the course commencing prior to 09.09.2009. The State of Uttarakhand went in SLP No.1596 of 2020, before the Hon’ble Apex Court clarifying that the Government Order dated 09.09.2009, shall not be made applicable for the Academic Session 2009-2010, which reads as under:- “In addition to the order passed on 14.02.2020, we further pass the following order: “As the admission of the Respondents was made for the Academic Session 2009-2010, the Government Order dated 9.9.2009 shall not be made applicable to them.” 9. Since in the present case admissions relate to the year 2009, the Government Order dated 09.09.2009, will not be applicable in the case of the respondent/student, and the writ petition has been rightly allowed. 10. The special appeal of the State is being dismissed.