ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for setting aside of the second bond which has been executed by him. He has also prayed for a direction to respondents to give him NOC and relieve him from the bond conditions. 2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Associate Professor (Bio-Chemistry) vide order dated 6.4.2018 in the Govt. Medical College, Datia (for brevity 'College'). As per Clause 3 of the said appointment order, the petitioner was required to serve the College up to the age of 65 years or for a period of 3 years from the date of appointment, whichever is earlier. He was required to execute a properly stamped bond in this regard. It is also mentioned in the said clause that on violation of its condition, the petitioner would be required to pay amount equal to one year salary. 3. The petitioner performed his duties as Associate Professor for about three years. The College, thereafter, invited applications for appointment on the post of Professor by way of direct recruitment vide advertisement, dated 17.9.2022, (Annexure P/2). Clause 4 of the advertisement under heading “ vU; 'krsZa ”—, provides for the similar condition of execution of bond, giving an undertaking to continue on the post up to the age of 65 years or for a period of three years from the date of appointment. Clause 4 being relevant is reproduced hereunder :-- ^^vkosnd dk p;u gksus ij mls 65 o"kZ dh mez vFkok fu;qfDr fnukad ls 03 o"kZ] tks Hkh igys gks rd lacaf/kr] 'kkldh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; esa lsok;sa nsuh gksaxhA vkosnd dks bl ckcr lE;d~ :i ls LVkafir ,d ckaM fu;qDr ds le; Hkjuk gksuk ,oa 'krZ ds mYya?ku ij mls 1 o"kZ ds osru@ekuns; ds cjkcj dh jkf'k egkfo|ky; dks pqdkuh gksxhAß 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for, selected and appointed as Professor (Bio-Chemistry) vide order, dated 27.12.2022, (Annexure P/3). Clause 3 of the appointment order again stipulated the condition for execution of bond. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for, selected and appointed as Professor (Bio-Chemistry) vide order, dated 27.12.2022, (Annexure P/3). Clause 3 of the appointment order again stipulated the condition for execution of bond. The same is reproduced hereunder:- ^^vkidh lsok,¡ fdlh Hkh le; 'kkldh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] nfr;k }kjk ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsdj vFkok mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru rFkk HkÙks nsdj lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA p;fur vH;FkhZ dks 65 o"kZ dh mez vFkok fu;qfDr fnukad ls 03 o"kZ] tks igys gks rd] 'kkldh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] nfr;k esa lsok;sa nsuk vfuok;Z gksxhA vkosnd dks bl ckcr lE;d~ :i ls LVkafir ,d ckaM fu;qfDr ds le; Hkjuk gksxk ,oa bl 'krZ ds mYya?ku ij mls ,d o"kZ ds osru@ekuns; ds cjkcj dh jkf'k egkfo|ky; dks pqdkuh gksxhA blds mijkar gh lacaf/kr dks fjyho fd;k tk ldsxkA lacaf/kr O;fDr }kjk ,d o"kZ dk osru rFkk HkÙks dk Hkqxrku fd;s fcuk lsok NksM+us ij mDr 'krks± ds varxZr ,d o"kZ ds osru rFkk HkÙks ds cjkcj ns; jkf'k lacaf/kr O;fDr ls Hkw&jktLo dh cdk;k dh Hkakfr olwyh ;ksX; gksxhA^^ 5. Accordingly, in compliance of clause 3 of the appointment order, the petitioner executed the bond which is placed on record as Annexure R/4 alongwith the return filed by respondents. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute between the parties. 6. It appears that the petitioner got better carrier opportunity in relation to which he was required to relinquish the assignment of the post of Professor in the respondent College. He was required to deposit amount in compliance with Clause 3 of his appointment order. To avoid this, he filed the present petition challenging Clause 3 of the order of appointment dated 27.12.2022. It is his submission that since he has already served the college for a period of 3 years as Associate Professor, he cannot be asked to execute a fresh bond while his appointment as Professor. He further submitted that the aforesaid condition is dehors the rules inasmuch as the relevant rules do not stipulate such a condition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition. He submitted that in other autonomous colleges, like college at Khandwa and Ratlam, there is no such condition imposed while appointment on the post of Professor. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition. He submitted that in other autonomous colleges, like college at Khandwa and Ratlam, there is no such condition imposed while appointment on the post of Professor. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner's appointment on the post of Professor was in continuation to his appointment as Associate Professor inasmuch as he was given the benefit of pay protection, continuation of leave period etc. while his appointment as Professor. He also point out that before appointment as Professor, the petitioner has given a technical resignation from the post of Associate Professor and continued in service without break. He, therefore, submits that stipulation of condition of execution of bond is illegal and bad in law. The learned counsel also referred to the Rules namely M.P. Autonomous Medical College Educational Model Service Rules, 2018 (for brevity "Rules of 2018") and submitted that there is no condition for execution of bond provided under the Rules of 2018 and therefore, the respondent/college exceeded its jurisdiction in making execution of bond a condition for appointment on the post 3 of Professor. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was constrained to execute the bond under compulsion inasmuch as he was not being paid salary without execution of bond. It is his contention that bond executed under coercion and compulsion is not binding upon petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the bond executed by the petitioner pursuant to Clause 3 of the order of appointment is liable to be quashed and respondents be directed to issue NOC to petitioner for accepting other assignment. Alternately, he submitted that if the bond condition is upheld, the amount payable by him may be proportionately reduced in view of the fact that he has already served the College for more than two and half years. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.4 supported the condition of appointment order and submitted that the petitioner was aware about the aforesaid condition even while making the application for appointment inasmuch as the advertisement, dated 17.9.2022, specifically provided for execution of the bond. He submitted that being aware about the the said condition, the petitioner wilfully applied for and accepted the appointment on the post of Professor and also executed the bond in compliance of Clause 3 of the order of appointment. He submitted that being aware about the the said condition, the petitioner wilfully applied for and accepted the appointment on the post of Professor and also executed the bond in compliance of Clause 3 of the order of appointment. He thus, submitted that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the order of appointment as also by the bond executed by him and after having accepted the appointment, now he cannot be allowed to say that the condition stipulated in the appointment order is bad in law. He also submitted that merely because the rules do not stipulate such a condition, it cannot be said that the college do not have competence to make such a condition for appointment. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Considered the arguments and perused the record. 10. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner while his appointment as Associate Professor on 6.4.2018 accepted the same condition and executed the bond. Again in advertisement, dated 17.9.2022, same condition was stipulated. The petitioner, aware about the bond condition in the advertisement, applied for and accepted the appointment on the post of Professor. He also executed the bond in compliance of Clause 3 of the order of appointment. Thus, it is a case where the petitioner was aware about the condition right from the date of making application for appointment. 11. The petitioner's contention that he was compelled to execute the bond and under coercion he executed the bond as the respondents were not making payment of salary to him, is liable to be rejected. The petitioner is a learned Professor and is presumed to be aware about his legal rights. Nobody could have compelled him to execute the bond. Further, the condition was already inserted in the advertisement and knowing well about this condition, the petitioner applied for and accepted the appointment in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was under compulsion while executing the bond. Since, the petitioner did not execute the bond in compliance with the condition of his appointment, the respondents were justified in asking him to execute the bond before payment of salary. This contention of petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 12. The bond is a contract between the employer and the employee and both are bound by the terms thereof. Since, the petitioner did not execute the bond in compliance with the condition of his appointment, the respondents were justified in asking him to execute the bond before payment of salary. This contention of petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 12. The bond is a contract between the employer and the employee and both are bound by the terms thereof. Thus, the petitioner, by executing the bond, undertook to continue up to the age of 65 years or for a period of 3 years whichever is earlier. Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to step back from such condition as he is bound by the terms of his appointment order and also with the terms of bond executed by him willingly. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rules do not provide such a condition, and therefore, the College exceeded its jurisdiction while making such a condition in order of appointment. In other words, it is his submission that the bond condition in advertisement/order of appointment is de-hors the rules of 2018. This submission of petitioner's counsel is also not acceptable. It is a settled legal position that if the rules are silent, the employer can always prescribe additional qualification/conditions for appointment. Thus, it cannot be said that the college exceeded its jurisdiction in making, execution of bond, a condition for appointment. On this issue, the apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Association of Medial Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2019)8 SCC 604 is relevant wherein the apex Court held in para 17 as under : "17. Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution refers to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. Schedule VII List III Entry 25 deals with education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Legislations can be made by the State Legislature relating to medical education subject to the legislation made by Parliament. The Medical Council of India Act governs the field of medical education in this country. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Medical Council of India Act touching upon the subject-matter of compulsory bonds. Therefore, the States are free to legislate on the subject-matter of medical bonds. The Medical Council of India Act governs the field of medical education in this country. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Medical Council of India Act touching upon the subject-matter of compulsory bonds. Therefore, the States are free to legislate on the subject-matter of medical bonds. Executive authority of the State Government is co-extensive with that of the legislative power of the State Legislature. Even in the absence of any legislation, the State Government has the competence to issue executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution on matters over which the State Legislature has the power to legislate. The notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of execution of compulsory bonds at the time of admission to postgraduate courses and superspeciality courses cannot be said to be vitiated due to lack of authority or competence. The field of bonds requiring compulsory employment is not covered by any Central legislation. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the States lacked competence to issue the notifications as the field is occupied are rejected." 13. The next submission of petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Professor was in continuation of his appointment as Associate Professor and since the petitioner has already served for three years, he cannot be asked to execute a fresh bond for a period of 3 years. This submission is also not acceptable. The petitioner's appointment on the post of Associate Professor on 6.4.2018 was independent of his subsequent appointment on the post of Professor on 27.12.2022. It is by virtue of fresh advertisement, the petitioner applied for and appointed as Professor. Even though there is no material available on record in this regard, even presuming that the benefit of pay protection, continuation of leave period etc. is granted to the petitioner, it cannot be said that petitioner's appointment was in continuation with his appointment as Associate Professor. Evidently, the petitioner submitted resignation from the post of Associate Professor before accepting the new assignment on the post of Professor. Thus, the petitioner's contention that since he has already served the bond period for three years as Associate Professor, he cannot be asked to furnish a fresh bond for the post of Professor, cannot be accepted. Evidently, the petitioner submitted resignation from the post of Associate Professor before accepting the new assignment on the post of Professor. Thus, the petitioner's contention that since he has already served the bond period for three years as Associate Professor, he cannot be asked to furnish a fresh bond for the post of Professor, cannot be accepted. With open eyes, he accepted the condition of execution of bond for his appointment on the post of Professor and, therefore, now he cannot be allowed to resile from his own commitment. 14. The petitioner has also tried to claim parity with other autonomous Medical Colleges like at Khandwa and Ratlam and has submitted that since in other colleges, such condition is not stipulated, the respondent/College erred in making such condition. This argument is also not acceptable inasmuch as different autonomous colleges can have different conditions for appointment. The condition of appointment cannot be challenged unless it is shown to be in contravention with any statutory provision. Admittedly, as per his own submission, the Rules of 2018 are silent on this aspect and, therefore, the condition of execution of bond for appointment on the post cannot be said to be illegal. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the bond to be executed is for the institution and not for a particular post and, therefore, since he already served the College for three years as Associate Professor as a condition of bond, he cannot be asked to execute fresh bond for the post of Professor. In this regard, if Clause 4 of the advertisement is seen, it becomes evident that the bond is to be executed pursuant to the selection of an incumbent on the post advertised. Thus, the bond is to be executed pursuant to the appointment on a particular post and the previous service rendered by such incumbent in the same institution would be of no relevance for the purposes of fresh appointment. Accordingly, this contention of the petitioner is also not acceptable. 16. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Stellar Information Technology private Ltd. v. Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., reported in 2016 Supreme (Del.) 3171. Accordingly, this contention of the petitioner is also not acceptable. 16. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Stellar Information Technology private Ltd. v. Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., reported in 2016 Supreme (Del.) 3171. It was a case where the plaintiff was asking for an ex-parte interim injunction for restraining the defendants therein from using and utilizing the confidential information of plaintiff and from carrying out any activity in breach of confidentiality in breach of terms of agreement. The Delhi High Court rendered the judgment after considering the ambit and scope of section 27 of Contract Act, 1872, which provides that an agreement in restraint of trade would be void. Apparently, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner as the provisions of section 27 of Contract Act are not attracted in facts of the present case for the reasons discussed hereinbelow. 17. The counsel for petitioner then relied upon apex Court judgment in the case of Superintendence Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1717 which was again a case interpreting section 27 of Contract Act. However, the facts of the said case were again entirely different then the facts of the present case. It was a case where the contract agreement provided for a restraint condition which was to come into operation after the employee leave the company. The apex Court rendered the judgment in favour of employee in view of the fact that the employee had not left the company but his services were terminated by the company. The apex Court thus interpreted the term "after you leave the company". The ratio of this case is also, therefore, of no help to petitioner. 18. Infact, the answer to aforesaid argument of petitioner's counsel lies in the very recent judgment of apex Court wherein also the ambit and scope of section 27 of Contract Act has been considered, in the case of Vijaya Bank and Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1107 . After discussing the previous authorities on the issue, the apex Court held in para 15 & 16 as under : "15. v. Prashant B Narnaware, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1107 . After discussing the previous authorities on the issue, the apex Court held in para 15 & 16 as under : "15. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, it can be safely concluded law is well settled that a restrictive covenant operating during the subsistence of an employment contract does not put a clog on the freedom of a contracting party to trade or employment. 16. A plain reading of clause 11 (k) shows restraint was imposed on the respondent to work for a minimum term i.e. three years and in default to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 2 Lacs. The clause sought to impose a restriction on the respondent's option to resign and thereby perpetuated the employment contract for a specified term. The object of the restrictive covenant was in furtherance of the employment contract and not to restrain future employment. Hence, it cannot be said to be violative of section 27 of the Contract Act." 19. The petitioner's counsel also placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, reported in 2024(2) MPLJ 200, wherein, the apex Court has considered the binding nature of an undertaking taken from the employee under coercion or compulsion. However, as discussed above, it has been found that the bond in question in this case was not taken under coercion or compulsion, this judgment would also not help the petitioner. 20. The learned counsel for petitioner next relied upon judgment of apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 , wherein the apex Court has discussed about bargaining power of unequal contracting parties. However, as discussed above, it is a case where the petitioner was already working Associate Professor and had executed the similar bond. Thereafter, being aware about the similar condition of execution of bond in the advertisement, he willingly accepted the same, applied for the post and got appointed as Professor. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner is highly educated and is capable of understanding his legal rights. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was having unequal bargaining power or was dominated by respondent College while accepting the condition of execution of bond. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner is highly educated and is capable of understanding his legal rights. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was having unequal bargaining power or was dominated by respondent College while accepting the condition of execution of bond. On the facts of this case, the judgment of apex Court is therefore, not applicable. 21. The need to incorporate such a condition in the contract of employment has been considered by apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra), wherein the apex Court held in para 26 & 27 as under : "26. Since the last decade of 20 th century, India witnessed an era of liberalization. Golden days of monopolistic public sector behemoths were gone. Public sector undertakings like the appellant-bank needed to compete with efficient private players operating in the same field. To survive in an atmosphere of deregulated free-market, public sector undertakings were required to review and reset policies which increased efficiency and rationalized administrative overheads. Ensuring retention of an efficient and experienced staff contributing to managerial skills was one of the tools inalienable to the interest of such undertakings including the appellant-bank. 27. This prompted the appellant-bank to incorporate a minimum service tenure for employees, to reduce attrition and improve efficiency. Viewed from this perspective, the restrictive covenant prescribing a minimum term cannot be said to be unconscionable, unfair or unreasonable and thereby in contravention of public policy." After having discussed all relevant issues, the apex Court has ultimately held in para 35 that the similar restrictive covenant in appointment letter does not amount to restraint of trade nor is it opposed to public policy. 22. This takes us to the last submission made by petitioner's counsel that, since the petitioner has already served the College for more than two and half years, the amount of bond may be reduced proportionately. It is seen that the conditions of bond, which is a contract between the petitioner and the College, is indivisible and inseperable. Therefore, the amount payable by petitioner on account of breach of terms of contract cannot be reduced. In this regard, another aspect to be looked into is that the College is an autonomous body and cannot resort to private or ad-hoc appointments through private contracts. Therefore, the amount payable by petitioner on account of breach of terms of contract cannot be reduced. In this regard, another aspect to be looked into is that the College is an autonomous body and cannot resort to private or ad-hoc appointments through private contracts. An untimely resignation would require the College to undertake an expensive recruitment process involving open advertisement, fair competitive procedure lest the appointment falls foul of the constitutional mandate under Article 14 & 16. Thus, for this reason also consequences of breach of terms of appointment order cannot be relaxed. 23. In view of the discussion made above, it is to be held that the petitioner is bound by the bond executed by him at the time of accepting the appointment and no relief can be granted to him in this petition. The petition is thus found to be without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.