Judgment : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Registry is directed to connect all these cases together. 2. The defects, pointed out by the Registry in the applications filed by the respondent-State for recalling/review of the orders passed by this Court, are overruled. 3. Since, the present writ petitions as well as the applications filed by the respondent-State for recalling/review of the order(s) passed by this Court involve common question of law, as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal together and are being heard and decided by this common order. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, SB Civil Writ Petition No.6559/2025 titled as Dr.Syed Shabaz vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., is being taken up as the lead case qua the writ petitions and qua the application seeking recall/review of the order passed by this Court, SB Civil Misc. Application No.136/2025 (Dr.Kritesh Goel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is taken as a lead case. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the outset that though the subject matter in the petitions and the application is substantially similar or pertains to an identical legal issue, the factual matrix varies to some extent in each case. These factual distinctions, while not altering the core legal question, may have a bearing on the reliefs sought and the adjudication of individual claims. They do not impinge upon or detract from the common questions of law which fall for consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions and the applications for recalling/review connected and heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required. FACTS OF THE CASE :- 4. The petitioner appeared in NEET PG - 2021 and was declared successful; subsequently he has also secured admission in the PG Course. During the course of admission procedure, the petitioner was directed to submit his original documents of previous qualification from the respective college, as compulsory pre-condition to secure admission in the preceding college. 5. The petitioner appeared in NEET PG - 2021 and was declared successful; subsequently he has also secured admission in the PG Course. During the course of admission procedure, the petitioner was directed to submit his original documents of previous qualification from the respective college, as compulsory pre-condition to secure admission in the preceding college. 5. The petitioner was further asked to execute a Service Bond/Undertaking in favour of the State Government to the effect that he will be duty-bound to serve the State Government after completion of the course for the prescribed period and thereafter for the further period of two years. On failure to carry out the service, in that eventuality, the petitioners-candidates will be liable to deposit a consequential amount as per bond conditions i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lac). 6. It was submitted that retention of original documents is without any terms and conditions nevertheless is against the norms of National Medical Commission (NMC) as well as contrary to the norms of the judgment of the Apex Court, as the same is unconstitutional, yet the respondents bound the petitioner and alike persons, who here also admit that as a pre-condition for securing admission, they have deposited the original documents with the respondents. 7. It was further submitted that the petitioner appeared for final examination of PG Course in the month of January, 2025 and was declared successful in the month of February, 2025. 8. It was also submitted that though result was declared in the month of February, 2025 yet the State Government/respondents committed a gross delay in grant of confirmation of service of two years in time. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was bound to leave the private hospital and was not given stipend resulting in not having any money for daily bread & butter, that too at a stage when he is duty-bound to carry out the family obligations. It is further submitted that bond has expired and was executed with specific terms & conditions. Once three years in PG were over and appointment was not renewed for the government service, bond and its conditions lapsed. 9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the judgments of Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12611/2022 , decided on 10 th November, 2022 along with other connected writ petitions, and Dr. 9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the judgments of Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12611/2022 , decided on 10 th November, 2022 along with other connected writ petitions, and Dr. Amit Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No.1347/2024 , decided by this Court vide order dated 08 th May, 2024, the petitioner has filed the present petition for getting the original documents released on furnishing an undertaking, as given by the similarly situated candidates so that no discrimination may be caused to the petitioner. 10. It was submitted that the respondents are doing a hostile discrimination, as even after a consented order, like given in the judgment of Dr.Amit Soni (supra) , wherein, on the basis of furnishing an undertaking, original documents of the petitioner- candidate therein were released and the point of law qua the bond amount and its encashment/forfeiture was kept pending in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors.: DB Special Appeal Writ No.1311/2022 before the Division Bench. 11. It was also submitted that in the light of above, the application seeking recall/review of the order passed by this Court is not maintainable, as the order, passed by this Court in the light of the judgment in the case of Dr.Amit Soni (supra), was a consented order. 12. It was further submitted that if the respondent - State has any grievance, they ought to approach the Division Bench by filing appeal/reference before it, as the issue, involved in the present matter, is pending for consideration before the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. (supra) and the Division Bench has already given a verdict in the identical matters vide order dated 09 th December, 2022 and it will be against the principles of judicial discipline to intervene and to take a contradictory or other view. 13. Vs. Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. (supra) and the Division Bench has already given a verdict in the identical matters vide order dated 09 th December, 2022 and it will be against the principles of judicial discipline to intervene and to take a contradictory or other view. 13. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel - Mr.Archit Bohra, appearing for respondent-State, submitted that so far as the judgments in the case of Dr.Nishant Gopaal (supra) and Dr.Amit Soni (supra) are concerned, the same are duly complied with qua the writ petitions filed by the similarly placed candidates, however, the petitioner and alike persons have not come with the clean hands before this Court, therefore, the State Government was under an obligation to file review/recalling application as well as to oppose the similarly placed situations, for which, following grounds are made:- 13.1 The petitioners and the similarly situated candidates have appeared in NEET PG – 2021; 13.2 Approximately, all the candidates have participated in the final examination for the given tenure in January, 2025 for the PG course and final result was declared on 28 th February, 2025; 13.3 The tenure of various students across the State of Rajasthan of three years of PG course was scheduled to complete in between the period of 08 th March, 2025 till May, 2025. A circular dated 13 th March, 2025 was issued by the Secretary, Medical Education to constitute a Counselling Board for allotment of Senior Residency-ship (SR-ship) to carry out the process in time and further to comply with the intent of the State. Howsoever, on account of certain legal issues, the said circular came to be withdrawn and a fresh order was issued on 01 st April, 2025 on account of a policy decision to remove few legal infirmities; 13.4 The said process was to be started in-between 03 rd April, 2025 and 26 th April, 2025, which took sometime and was delayed on account of bona fide reason. Howsoever, the intent of the State Government was to allot the students on initial stage of passing out. 14. It was further submitted that the petitioners are bound to serve the State Government for a period of 3+2 = 5 years, failing which, the bond has to be encashed @ Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lac). 15. It was further submitted that dictum in the case of Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. 14. It was further submitted that the petitioners are bound to serve the State Government for a period of 3+2 = 5 years, failing which, the bond has to be encashed @ Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lac). 15. It was further submitted that dictum in the case of Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. (supra) and Dr.Amit Soni (supra) are distinguishable. 16. In the light of the subsequent facts, the applications seeking recall/review of the order passed by this Cot is filed and apposition is taken, therefore, that will not construe res judicata on account of the fact that the candidates, who have not completed their course or at the stage of merely finishing the course, have approached the Court at a premature stage and merely upon an undertaking, got their documents released. 17. It was then submitted that an unconditional release of documents, merely on an undertaking in the light of the judgment of the Court is done with the breach, ulterior motive and even the candidates upon giving show cause notice, neither joined nor are fulfilling the conditions of bond, rather challenging the State to take action in accordance with law, which will take time and the same will totally deliberating the functioning of the government hospitals and the public health service system and it will be a draconian situation. 18. It was submitted that in spite of the fact that undertaking/affidavit was given for joining services immediately or depositing the amount of bond @ Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lac), the same is flouted and to give a statistics, learned counsel for the respondent - State furnished a list of the candidates, to whom, documents are released and out of 138, only 46 candidates have joined and 92 candidates have not joined. Secondly; a chart was furnished, wherein the documents are released, which come to 318 candidates, out of which, only 59 persons have joined and 259 persons have not joined. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent - State further submitted that scheme of furnishing the undertaking has prejudiced and it affected the working of the hospitals and the statistics, as provided above, show that the hospitals cannot be run for want of SR-ship, which have not joined in high numbers. 20. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent - State further submitted that scheme of furnishing the undertaking has prejudiced and it affected the working of the hospitals and the statistics, as provided above, show that the hospitals cannot be run for want of SR-ship, which have not joined in high numbers. 20. It was also submitted that by 31 st May, 2025 the period of joining will lapse and if the concerned person does not join the service, the process has to be commenced for encashing the bond. 21. It was further submitted that the petitioner/s is/are giving vague reply rather at this stage, he/she/they is/are contesting the issue which is pending before the Division Bench. 22. In the light of the above, it was prayed that the petitioner/s may be directed to join the services or to comply with the terms and conditions of bond by depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lac) as in the undertaking, they have spelled out that they will join the service immediately or to pay the due amount, which is not honored. 23. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record carefully. 24. In the light of the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is analyzed that similar matter was raised before the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1311/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. 23. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record carefully. 24. In the light of the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is analyzed that similar matter was raised before the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1311/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors.) , wherein after due deliberation, considering public domain, the State bearing high expenditure on PG Candidates/students, who have used a sum of crores individually, selected in government colleges and after admitting a contract of rendering service for a period of two years and rendering on bond to be legally maintainable in association of medical specialty case, the Division Bench of this Court has given equitable and discretionary directions considering prima facie nature of the case, though admitting that the issue is contentious in nature whether bond can be taken, original documents can be retained without any condition and therefore, as an interim measure, the Court has directed as under:- “On the aforesaid prima-facie considerations on the basis of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, while we are not inclined to stay the directions, which have been issued by the learned Single Judge in the matter, however, as far as return of documents is concerned, it is directed that on writ petitioners submitting an undertaking on affidavit before this Court that if they are not inclined to accept appointment offered to them, they will deposit the amount payable under the bond and on submission of an affidavit before the concerned authority regarding filing of undertaking before this Court along with copy of the undertaking, the documents/credentials/certificates/mark-sheets shall be returned to the respondents.” 25. Relying upon the said directions, various judgments were passed by this Court, in which, applications seeking recall/review are filed. The orders, which are sought to be recalled/reviewed, were consented order. The prayer of the State Government in the changed and subsequent circumstances, prima facie appears to be justified and needs consideration, howsoever, as the Division Bench is seized with the similar matters qua legitimacy of the execution of bond, retention of original documents and the issue being contentious, the right to take a stand and to pass necessary directions is with the Division Bench and not this Court. Even the changed statistics and subsequent event, which are submitted, can be looked into by the Division Bench only, as the Single Bench has already taken its view in the case of Dr.Nishant Gopaal & Ors. (supra) , therefore, while following principles of judicial discipline, this Court cannot take a deviated view. Howsoever, the parties to the litigation will be at liberty to take an appropriate legal recourse before the Division Bench in accordance with law, if so advised/chooses. 26. In view of the above and while maintaining the directions, as given in the case of Dr.Nishant Gopaal (supra) and Dr.Amit Soni (supra) , the writ petitions are allowed. 27. So far as the applications, seeking recall/review of the orders passed by this Court, are concerned, in the light of the above judicial discipline and considering that the orders, sought to be reviewed, were passed with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same cannot be reviewed. Hence, the applications for recalling/review of the order are dismissed, as no substance is made out. 28. Stay application and/or pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 29. A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.