regarding the non issuance of the Migration
Certificate to her. The case of the petitioner is that
the concerned respondents ought to issue the Migration
Certificate without insisting for the payment of the
Bond penalty. This stand, in the view of this Court,
is highly untenable, as the respondents are precluded
from doing so by the Government Resolution dated
22.10.1996. This Government Resolution specifically
states that the Migration Certificate would not be
issued in favour of a candidate who leaves the Post
Graduate Course halfway, until the Bond penalty is
paid.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6013 of 2015
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Dated : 28/09/2015
Citation;AIR 2016 (NOC)142 GUJ
Government Pleader, waives service of notices of Rule
for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.A.R. Thacker,
learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for
respondent No.2. On the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and with the consent of the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the petition is
being heard and decided, finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred, interalia,
with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned
communication dated 07.08.2014, issued by respondent
No.4Dean, Government Medical College and to direct
respondents Nos.2 and 3, Veer Narmad South Gujarat
University and Government Medical College,
respectively, to issue a Migration Certificate to the
petitioner.
3. The facts giving rise to the present petition, as
can be garnered from the material on record, are as
follows:
3.1 Initially, the petitioner had taken admission in
the Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and
Research in the Under Graduate Programme. The said
institution was a selffinanced institution, run by a
Trust. It so happened that Swami Vivekanand Institute
of Medical Science and Research was derecognized by
the Medical Council of India. Fiftyone students of
Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and
Research filed a petition in this regard, being
Special Civil Application No.9551 of 2008, interalia,
with a prayer to transfer them to any recognized
medical college so that their academic careers do not
suffer. By judgment dated 21.08.2008, a Division Bench
of this Court directed the State Government to take
over the responsibility of all the petitioners therein
and to ensure that they are allotted to a recognized
medical college.
3.2 The petitioner was one of the students, who was
transferred to respondent No.3 College in the 3rd
year MBBS PartII. The petitioner enrolled in the Post
Graduate Programme, after the completion of the MBBS
Course with respondent No.2 University. He was to
join in respondent No.3College as a Resident on
30.06.2012. This is clear from the Office Order dated
29.06.2012, issued by respondent No.4. By the said
Office Order, the names of five Residents, including
the petitioner, are given in a tabular form and it is
stated that the said candidates have been appointed as
First Year Diploma Residents in the subjects against
their names. This Office Order contains certain
conditions, including Condition No.16, which states
that the Residents would have to obtain permission for
undergoing the Post Graduate Course according to the
conditions of the Bond already executed by them at the
time of admission in the First MBBS Course, and they
would be required to file an undertaking to the effect
that they would abide by the terms and conditions of
the Bond executed at the time of admission to the MBBS
Course. It was further stipulated that the validity of
the Bond would be extended for the Post Graduate
period, as well.
3.3 On 23.07.2012, the petitioner addressed a letter
to respondent No.4 Dean, Government Medical College,
Surat, stating that due to personal reasons, she would
like to resign from the Post Graduate Programme and
may be permitted to do so. The petitioner also made a
request that all her original Certificates be
returned, immediately.
3.4 By a letter dated 03.07.2012 (placed on record as
AnnexureRVI with the affidavitinreply filed by
respondents Nos.3 and 4), the petitioner requested
respondent No.4 to grant her an extension of fifteen
days for the submission of the Bond. Thereafter, by
another letter dated 24.07.2012, addressed to
respondent No.4, the petitioner again requested
respondent No.4 to return her original documents. In
addition, the petitioner gave a surety that she would
pay the Bond amount, as applicable, within six months.
This surety letter has been endorsed by one Dr. H.M.
Patel, who has himself gave a surety that the
petitioner would pay the Bond amount as per Government
Rules, as applicable, and the demand of the State
Government.
3.5 Thereafter, respondent No.4 addressed a letter to
the petitioner, stating therein, that the petitioner
was required to pay an amount of Rs.85,000/ (that is
Rs.75,000/, being half of Rs.1,50,000/ which is a
Bond amount, plus Rs.10,000/ towards Residency), as
Page 5 of 36
HC-NIC Page 5 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
she had resigned midway from the Post Graduate
Prorgramme. If the petitioner failed to pay the said
amount, it could be recovered as arrears of land
revenue.
3.6 The father of the petitioner addressed a
communication dated 26.05.2014 to respondent No.4,
stating that the petitioner had not made any Bond
agreement with Swami Vivekanand College, where she had
obtained admission initially, therefore, there is no
requirement of paying the Bond amount. However, an
assurance was given that if any amount is required to
be paid on account of the Bond, such amount would be
paid.
3.7 It may be noted that in the meanwhile, the
original documents of the petitioner had been returned
to her by the concerned respondents. However, the
Migration Certificate had not been issued.
3.8 Respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated
07.08.2014 to the father of the petitioner, stating
that, as she had left the course midway, as per the
Page 6 of 36
HC-NIC Page 6 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Government Resolution dated 08.11.1996, the petitioner
was required to pay the Bond amount, as assured, for
which extension of time had been granted initially for
fifteen days and later on, for six months. It is
stated in the said communication that till the Bond
amount is not paid, the Migration Certificate of the
petitioner would not be issued to her.
3.9 Aggrieved by the communication dated 07.08.2014,
issued by respondent No.4, stating that the petitioner
would have to pay the Bond amount in order to obtain
the Migration Certificate, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
4. Mr.Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate for Mr.S.P.
Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has
vehemently submitted that the petitioner had initially
taken admission in the Swami Vivekanand Institute of
Medical Science and Research, which was a SelfFinanced
institution, where there was no condition
regarding the execution of a Bond or an Agreement. The
petitioner had, therefore, not signed any Agreement or
Bond, nor had any amount been paid by the petitioner
towards the Bond.
Page 7 of 36
HC-NIC Page 7 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
4.1 That in the office order dated 29.06.2012,
whereby the petitioner was granted admission in the
First Year Diploma of the Post Graduate Programme as a
Resident, there is a condition at Clause No.16, to the
effect that the Resident would have to obtain
permission for doing the Post Graduate course
according to the conditions of the Bond “already
executed” by her at the time of admission in the First
MBBS Course, and that the validity of the Bond would
be extended for the period of Post Graduate Course
also. It is contended that this condition would not
apply to the petitioner, as she had never executed any
Bond at the time of admission in the First MBBS
Course; therefore, there is no question of extending
the validity of the Bond for the period of the Post
Graduate Diploma Course. According to the learned
advocate for the petitioner, this condition would
apply only to those Residents who had executed a Bond
in the First MBBS Course. As there was no requirement
of executing a Bond in the Swami Vivekanand Institute
of Medical Science and Research, it being a SelfFinanced
institution, and as the petitioner had not
executed any Bond or paid any amount towards the Bond,
Page 8 of 36
HC-NIC Page 8 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Condition No.16 would not be applicable to the
petitioner.
4.2 It is further submitted that the Government
Resolution dated 08.11.1996, relied upon by respondent
No.4 in the impugned communication dated 07.08.2014,
is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner,
as this Government Resolution refers to a Bond already
executed at the time of admission to the MBBS Course.
It is submitted that as per this Government Resolution
as well, the validity of the Bond earlier executed,
would be extended for the duration of the Post
Graduate Course and if the Resident leaves the Post
Graduate Course midway, 50% of the Bond amount would
be recovered. The learned advocate for the petitioner
has emphatically submitted that this Government
Resolution cannot be made applicable in the case of
the petitioner as the petitioner has not executed any
Bond or paid any amount towards the Bond at the
initial stage when she obtained admission in the MBBS
Course. There is no question of extending the validity
of a Bond which has never been executed, for the
duration of the Post Graduation Course. For this
Page 9 of 36
HC-NIC Page 9 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
reason, the petitioner is not liable to pay the Bond
penalty on leaving the course midway.
4.3 It is contended that the petitioner has left the
Post Graduate Course within twentyone days,
therefore, the insistence on the part of the
respondents in recovering the Bond amount as penalty
is unjust and improper. It is further submitted that
though her original documents have been returned to
the petitioner, the respondents are wrongly
withholding the Migration Certificate until the Bond
amount is paid. As such, there is no rule based on
which the Migration Certificate can be withheld from
the petitioner. Respondent No.3College has no
authority under the law to refuse to provide the
Migration Certificate. It cannot claim to have a lien
over the Migration Certificate of the petitioner, for
want of the payment of the Bond amount.
4.4 Referring to the Government Resolution dated
22.10.1996, relied upon by respondent No.1 in the
affidavitinreply filed on its behalf, a similar
submission has been advanced on behalf of the
Page 10 of 36
HC-NIC Page 10 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
petitioner, that this Government Resolution is also
not applicable to the petitioner for the same reason
that the petitioner has not executed any Bond or paid
any amount towards the Bond while taking admission in
the First MBBS Course. It is submitted that the
stipulation in this Government Resolution that the
Migration Certificate would not be issued if the Bond
amount is not paid would, therefore, not be applicable
to the petitioner.
4.5 In support of the above submissions, the learned
advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following Judgments:
(1) Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2014(3) GLH 481
(2) Judgment dated 23.07.2014 rendered in
Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014
(3) Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And
Anr., reported in AIR 2005 Gujarat 159
5. The petition has been strongly opposed by
Page 11 of 36
HC-NIC Page 11 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is
submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader
that initially, the petitioner had taken admission in
Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and
Research, which was a SelfFinanced institution. As
there was no requirement of paying any amount as Bond
in the said institution, the petitioner had not paid
any amount. The question of paying the Bond amount has
arisen as the petitioner applied for admission in the
Post Graduate Diploma Course for the academic year
201213, after the completion of the MBBS course. The
petitioner obtained admission in the Post Graduate
Diploma Course on 30.06.2012. In the Office Order
dated 29.06.2012, whereby the petitioner was granted
admission to the Post Graduate Course, certain
conditions have been imposed. Condition No.16 is
regarding the extension of the Bond executed at the
time of admission in the First MBBS Course, for the
duration of the Post Graduate Course. The petitioner
was, therefore, made aware about the requirement of
the condition regarding the Bond at this juncture. It
is specifically stated in Condition No.16 that the
Page 12 of 36
HC-NIC Page 12 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
duration of the Bond was to be extended for the Post
Graduate Course as well.
5.1 It is emphatically submitted that the petitioner
was very much aware of the requirement of paying the
Bond amount, which is clear from her communication
dated 03.07.2012, addressed to respondent No.4, asking
for extension of fifteen days for such payment.
Though, for some personal reasons of her own, the
petitioner resigned midway though from the Post
Graduate Course on 23.07.2012, she cannot escape from
the fact that she is required to comply with the
condition of the payment of the Bond amount, which was
stipulated in the Office Order dated 29.06.2012,
whereby she was granted admission in the Post
Graduation Course.
5.2 It is submitted that the petitioner again
addressed a letter dated 24.07.2012, to respondent
No.4, giving an undertaking and an assurance that she
would pay the Bond amount, if applicable, as per
Rules, within six months. One Dr. H.M. Patel has also
endorsed this communication as a surety on behalf of
Page 13 of 36
HC-NIC Page 13 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
the petitioner, undertaking that she would pay the
Bond amount as per the Government Rules. The father of
the petitioner has also addressed a communication
dated 26.05.2014 to respondent No.4, stating that no
Bond was executed by the petitioner in Swami
Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research,
but if the Bond amount is required to be paid, it
would be paid.
5.3 It is submitted that all these aspects make it
clear that both the petitioner and her father were
very well aware of the fact that the petitioner is
required to pay the Bond amount upon her resignation
from the Post Graduate Programme, midway.
5.4 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has
further submitted that as per the Government
Resolution dated 08.11.1996, the penalty for leaving
the course midway is, half of the amount of the Bond.
Further, as per the Government Resolution dated
22.10.1996, the Migration Certificate cannot be issued
to the petitioner without paying the Bond amount which
is due to the State Government. It is submitted that
Page 14 of 36
HC-NIC Page 14 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
these Government Resolutions are policy decisions of
the State Government and hold the field, and are very
much applicable in the case of the petitioner. The
demand of the respondents for payment of the Bond
amount from the petitioner is, therefore, legal and
justified. The respondents cannot issue a Migration
Certificate to the petitioner until the recovery of
the amount due from the petitioner is made.
5.5 It is further submitted that along with the
petitioner, eleven or twelve students had also been
transferred to respondent No.3College, in the same
course. Out of those students, one has resigned midway
and has already paid the Bond amount. The other
students, who are still studying, have adhered to the
conditions of the Bond.
5.6 Distinguishing the judgment relied upon by the
petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader that the facts of the present case
are on totally different footing than the facts of the
case in Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors (supra), therefore, the said judgment
Page 15 of 36
HC-NIC Page 15 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
would not be applicable to the present case. It is
submitted that in that case, there was no rule or
regulation requiring the payment of fees for retention
of the original documents of the petitioner. However,
in the present case, there are two Government
Resolutions that hold the field and prohibit the grant
of a Migration Certificate without the payment of the
Bond penalty in cases where the candidate leaves the
course midway.
5.7 It is next contended that the Migration
Certificate is not an original document to be returned
to the petitioner. In the case of Monil
Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors
(supra), the issue was regarding the return of the
original documents. In the present case, the original
documents have already been returned to the
petitioner. There is a specific condition for the
issuance of a Migration Certificate, which has to be
fulfilled by the petitioner.
5.8 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that another distinction between the facts
Page 16 of 36
HC-NIC Page 16 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
of the case relied upon by the petitioner and the
present case is that, the petitioner herein was very
much aware of the condition of the Bond even when she
took admission in the Post Graduate Course, as the
said condition has been stipulated in the letter of
admission. For this reason, she has sought extension
of time to pay the Bond amount on various occasions.
Such were not the facts in the case of Monil
Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
(supra).
5.9 It is further submitted that the judgment dated
23.07.2014, passed in Special Civil Application
No.8884 of 2014, would also not be applicable as, in
that case, this Court has followed the judgment in
Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors (supra).
5.10 Distinguishing the judgment in the case of
Jigishaben Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology And Anr.
(supra), the learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that, the said case was for the payment of
Page 17 of 36
HC-NIC Page 17 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
fees regarding the withholding of the original
marksheet of the petitioner therein, and the
insistence on the part of the Institution to pay the
entire fees for the Four Years' course, upon the
cancellation of the admission. In that case, the
demand was cancelled as the petitioner could not pay
the fees. The facts of that case are on a different
footing, therefore, the said judgment would not come
to the aid of the petitioner.
5.11 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has
brought to the notice of this Court, from the original
record, the application form filled in by the
petitioner upon her enrollment in the Post Graduate
Diploma Course, wherein the petitioner has stated that
she has paid the Bond of Rs.1,50,000/. It is
submitted that this shows the conduct of the
petitioner, who has admittedly not paid any Bond
amount but has wrongly stated so. On one hand, the
petitioner is giving incorrect details regarding the
Bond amount in the application and on the other hand
she is seeking extension of time to pay the said
amount.
Page 18 of 36
HC-NIC Page 18 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
5.12 On the basis of the above submissions, the
learned Assistant Government Pleader has forcibly
submitted that the petitioner does not deserve to be
granted the relief claimed, therefore, the petition
be rejected.
6. Mr.A.R. Thacker, learned advocate for respondent
No.2, submits that he adopts the arguments advanced by
Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government
Pleader and supports the stand of the State
Government.
7. By making submissions in rejoinder, Mr.Shakti S.
Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner, has
reiterated the submissions advanced earlier, while
emphasising that there is no rule or authority
supporting the stand of the State Government and
respondent No.3College, in retaining the Migration
Certificate of the petitioner.
7.1 It is submitted that, as the original
Certificates of the petitioner have already been
Page 19 of 36
HC-NIC Page 19 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
returned to her, there cannot be any impediment in
issuing the Migration Certificate. It is further
submitted that if the condition of the Bond was
imperative, the respondents ought to have made the
petitioner execute the Bond.
7.2 Regarding the application form filled up by the
petitioner wherein it is mentioned that the “bond
given of Rs.1,50,000/”, it is submitted, upon taking
oral instructions from the petitioner, that according
to the petitioner, she was told to fill in the form in
that manner by one of the officers of respondent No.3
College.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties at length and in great detail,
perused the averments made in the petition and other
pleadings, as well as the material on record.
9. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner
initially took admission in the MBBS Course in Swami
Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research,
there was no condition or requirement regarding the
Page 20 of 36
HC-NIC Page 20 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
execution of a Bond, or demand of any amount towards a
Bond, as the said Institution was a SelfFinanced one.
As Swami Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and
Research came to be derecognised by the Medical
Council of India, fiftyone students studying therein
approached this Court, by filing Special Civil
Application No.9551 of 2008, as already stated
hereinabove. By judgment dated 21.08.2008, passed in
the said petition, the Division Bench of this Court
directed the State Government to take over the
responsibility of the said students and to ensure that
they are allotted to a recognised medical college so
that their studies do not suffer. In the above
context, the petitioner was transferred to respondent
No.3Government Medical College, Surat, in 3rd year
MBBS PartII. Upon completion of the MBBS Course, the
petitioner took admission in the Post Graduate Diploma
Course for the Academic Year 201213. The Office Order
dated 29.06.2012, is a relevant document, stating that
the petitioner has been appointed as a First Year
Diploma Resident in the Post Graduate Diploma Course.
It is mentioned in the said Office Order that the
petitioner would have to join the course on
Page 21 of 36
HC-NIC Page 21 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
30.06.2012. The Office Order contains 18 conditions.
Condition No.16 is relevant and is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“(16) They will also have to obtain
permission for doing postgraduate according to
the condition of the bond already executed by
them at the time of admission in 1st M.B.B.S.
Course and an undertaking to the effect that
they shall abide by the terms and conditions of
agreement, bond etc. executed at the time of
admission to MBBS course and this validity shall
be extended for the period of postgraduate
also, in the forms provided to you by College
Office.”
10. As per this condition, the validity of the Bond
executed at the time of admission in the first MBBS
Course would be extended for the duration of the Post
Graduate Course. Meaning thereby, that for the Post
Graduate Course, there is a requirement of the payment
of the Bond amount. This requirement was known to the
petitioner.
11. For personal reasons, the petitioner thought it
fit to resign from the Post Graduate Diploma Course
Page 22 of 36
HC-NIC Page 22 of
36
Created On Sat Feb 13 21:16:56 IST 2016C/SCA/6013/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
and her Residency. She addressed a letter dated
23.07.2012 to respondent No.4, stating her desire to
resign and requesting for permission and approval to
do so. By the said communication, the petitioner
further requested respondent No.4 to return all her
original Certificates. There is no dispute regarding
the return of the original documents of the
petitioner, as they have already been returned. The
bone of contention is the issuance of the Migration
Certificate by respondents Nos.2 and 3, for which the
said respondents are insisting on the payment of the
Bond penalty, considering that the petitioner resigned
midway from the Post Graduate Programme.
12. From the letter dated 03.07.2012, addressed by
the petitioner to respondent No.4, it is clear that
the petitioner was very well aware of the requirement
of paying the Bond amount. By the said communication,
the petitioner has requested for an extended period of
fifteen days to do the needful. The father of the
petitioner has also undertaken to pay the Bond amount,
if required by Government Rules, vide his letter dated
26.05.2014, addressed to respondent No.4.
13. The petitioner has, thereafter, addressed letter
dated 24.07.2012 to respondent No.4, undertaking to
pay the Bond amount and has given an assurance that
the said amount would be paid within six months. One
Dr.H.M. Patel has endorsed the said letter and given a
surety that the petitioner would pay the Bond amount,
as per Government rules. In the communication dated
30.06.2012, (annexed as AnnexureRI to the affidavitinreply
filed on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4),
which is regarding the reshuffling interview of the
petitioner, there is a condition at Serial No.6 which
states as follows:
“(i) That you will have to execute a bond of
Rs.75,000/ (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand) OR
difference of the amount of the bond executed by
him/ her at the time of admission in First
M.B.B.S Course to serve the Government in rural
areas for a period of three years after
completion of their PostGraduate course/studies.
(ii) Students who are appointed as a First Year
Resident by the college shall be required to
produce a Certificate duly stamped and signed as
an indication of having executed the requisite
bond as stated above.
(iii) Students from the Universities other
than South Gujarat University are also required
to execute bond to the effect stated above,
failing which the admission of such students will
be liable to be cancelled.”
14. From the above, it is amply clear that the
petitioner was not oblivious to the requirement of
paying the Bond amount and was, therefore, very well
aware that her resignation midway through the Post
Graduate Course would entail the liability of the
payment of the Bond penalty. The aspect that Swami
Vivekanand Institute of Medical Science and Research,
the SelfFinanced institution where the petitioner had
initially obtained admission in the MBBS Course, had
not imposed a condition regarding the execution of a
Bond, does not mean that this requirement, which is a
condition precedent for admission in the Post Graduate
Course of the Government Medical College, is liable to
be waived in the case of the petitioner.
15. The Rules and Regulations of the SelfFinanced
institution in which the petitioner initially obtained
admission in the Under Graduate Course cannot be
superimposed upon the Government Medical College in
which the petitioner has willingly and knowingly taken
admission in the Post Graduate Course, in the Academic
Year 201213. The Office Order dated 29.06.2012,
granting admission to the petitioner, as well as the
communication dated 30.06.2012, regarding the
reshuffling interview of the petitioner, very clearly
stipulate the condition regarding the Bond, in order
to gain admission in the Post Graduate Diploma Course
of respondent No.3 Institution. The petitioner would
have to fulfill the conditions, rules and regulations
applicable to the Institution where she was studying
at the time she resigned and cannot claim any
relaxation due to the lack of such rules and
regulations in the SelfFinanced Institution where she
had initially got admission in the MBBS Course.
16. Further, the Government Resolution dated
08.11.1996, clearly stipulates that the Bond executed
at the stage of the MBBS Course would be extended for
the duration for the Post Graduate Course and if a
candidate undergoing the Post Graduate Course leaves
the course midway he, or she, would be liable to pay
50% of the Bond amount. As stated in the letter dated
07.08.2012 issued by respondent No.4 to the
petitioner, the petitioner would have to pay 50% of
the Bond amount of Rs.1,50,000/ plus Rs.10,000/
towards Residency, for leaving the Post Graduate
Course midway, as per Government Resolution dated
08.11.1996. The total amount liable to be paid by the
petitioner is Rs.85,000/.
17. In the letter dated 30.06.2012 regarding the
reshuffling interview, the amount of Rs.75,000/
towards the Bond money is clearly indicated. The
admission of the petitioner was, therefore, governed
by Condition No.16 in the Office order dated
29.06.2012 and the Communication dated 30.06.2012
(regarding reshuffling interview) as well as the
Government Resolutions dated 08.11.1996 and
22.10.1996.
18. The specific grievance of the petitioner is
regarding the nonissuance of the Migration
Certificate to her. The case of the petitioner is that
the concerned respondents ought to issue the Migration
Certificate without insisting for the payment of the
Bond penalty. This stand, in the view of this Court,
is highly untenable, as the respondents are precluded
from doing so by the Government Resolution dated
22.10.1996. This Government Resolution specifically
states that the Migration Certificate would not be
issued in favour of a candidate who leaves the Post
Graduate Course halfway, until the Bond penalty is
paid.
19. The learned advocate for the petitioner has
repeatedly argued that when the petitioner has not
executed any Bond or paid any amount while getting
admission in the MBBS Course, such Bond cannot be
extended to the Post Graduate Course. As has already
been stated earlier, the Rules of Swami Vivekanand
Institute of Medical Science and Research may not have
required the execution of a Bond or payment of a Bond
amount. However, the Rules, or the lack of them in the
SelfFinanced Institution, cannot be superimposed upon
respondent No.3 Government Medical College in which
the petitioner was admitted for the Post Graduate
Course, and which is specifically governed by the
above conditions and Government Resolutions regarding
the payment of the Bond amount.
20. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was very well aware
of the requirement of the payment of the Bond amount
at the time of taking admission in the Post Graduate
Course. She has also undertaken to pay the Bond amount
by asking for extension of time and giving assurances
that she would pay the amount. When there are specific
rules/conditions/Government Resolutions requiring the
payment of the Bond amount in respondent No.3
Institution and prohibiting the issuance of a
Migration Certificate until the Bond amount has been
paid, it cannot be said that the respondents are
acting in an unjust or arbitrary manner in not issuing
Migration Certificate to the petitioner. The
petitioner, herself, has not fulfilled the requirement
of the Rules. After being fully aware of the
requirement of paying the Bond amount, asking for
extension of time to do so and giving repeated
assurances that she would pay, the petitioner cannot
be permitted to take a divergent stand now.
21. It may be noted that the Government Resolutions
dated 08.11.1996 and 22.10.1996 are in the nature of
executive instructions that hold the field. They are
very much applicable to the case of the petitioner.
The requirement of paying the Bond amount is raised in
the Post Graduate Course, and not the MBBS Course,
therefore, the insistence on the part of the learned
advocate for the petitioner that merely because no
amount was paid as Bond money in the SelfFinanced
Institution it is not required to be paid in
respondent No.3 Government Institution, is a
contradiction in terms and cannot be accepted.
Different institutions are governed by different rules
and once the petitioner has consciously taken
admission in respondent No.3 College, she cannot
escape the rigours of the rules that are applicable to
that institution.
22. This brings us to the judgments cited by the
learned advocate for the petitioner.
23. Heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment in
the case of Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors (supra). That was a case wherein the
petitioner of that petition was admitted to a college
affiliated to the Saurashtra University. After
obtaining admission, handing over his original
Certificates and paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/
towards fees for the Academic Year 201314, the
petitioner therein learnt that the course in which he
had enrolled was not recognised by the Medical Council
of India. He, therefore, wrote to the respondentCollege,
stating that his admission be treated as
cancelled and asked for the return of his original
Certificates and the amount paid by him towards fees.
By that time, the petitioner therein had appeared in
an examination conducted by the Manipal University and
had been called for counselling. As he would be unable
to participate in the counselling at Manipal
University without his original documents, the
petitioner had approached this Court. The respondentCollege
was demanding the entire fees for remaining of
the course of the petitioner in lieu of return of the
documents. Applying the ratio of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and
Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka And Ors., reported in
(2003) 6 SCC 697, this Court held that the
Institution had not evolved any mechanism to recover
the amount in the form of Bond, or bank guarantee, to
ensure the recovery for the entire course, when the
student leaves the course, midway. It was found that
the respondentCollege had no automatic right to
recover fees for the entire course and the Rules or
guidelines of the UGC did not provide for the
retention of the documents at the time of cancellation
of the admission. In light of such facts, this Court
issued a direction to the respondentCollege to return
the original documents of the petitioner, while
leaving it open to the respondentCollege to avail of
the appropriate remedy to recover the loss which it
might have sustained.
24. The facts on which the present petitioner has
approached this Court are entirely different. In the
present case, there are specific conditions and two
Government Resolutions that mandate the payment of the
Bond penalty when a student leaves the Post Graduate
Course, midway. This condition is stipulated not only
in the admission letter dated 29.06.2012 but also in
the letter dated 30.06.2012, regarding the reshuffling
interview. The said Government Resolutions govern the
issue. It is provided in the said Government
Resolutions that a candidate leaving the Post Graduate
Course midway is required to pay the Bond penalty and
till such time that it is not paid, the Migration
Certificate cannot be issued.
25. In Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors (supra), the facts were that no
mechanism had been evolved and no rules or regulations
existed for the retaining of the documents of the
petitioner therein. The significant difference in the
present case is that there is a mechanism in place,
there are conditions, rules, regulations and
Government Resolutions, governing the field, that are
applicable to the specific case of the petitioner. The
judgment in Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar Vs. State
of Gujarat and Ors (supra), though relevant on the
facts of that case, cannot come to the aid of the
present petitioner in the present case. Similarly, the
judgment dated 23.07.2014, passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.8884 of 2014, following
the above judgment, would also not be applicable.
26. On the same ground, the judgment in Jigishaben
Jasavantsinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Institute of Technology And Anr.(supra), would not
render much help to the petitioner, as this Court has
held that the insistence on the part of the
respondents therein to make the payment of
Rs.1,64,000/ towards four years' fees was unjustified
and contrary to the Rules. In the present case, no
action of the respondents can be said to be contrary
to the existing rules, regulations and Government
Resolutions, therefore, this judgment would not be
applicable in the present case.
27. In the present case, the conduct of the
petitioner is also required to be noticed. In the
application form filled in by the petitioner for the
Post Graduate Course, it is stated in column No.(2)
“P.G. Bond : Bond given of Rs.1,50,000/”, whereas it
is the case of the petitioner, herself, that no Bond
amount has been paid. On one hand, the petitioner is
falsely stating in the application form that she had
given Rs.1,50,000/ as the Bond amount and on the
other hand, the petitioner is herself asking for
extension of time to pay the Bond amount, vide her
communications dated 03.07.2012 and 24.07.2012, in
addition to the communication dated 27.05.2014 by the
father of the petitioner. The submission of the
learned advocate for the petitioner, upon
instructions, that the officers of the respondentCollege
asked the petitioner to fill up the form in
the manner as has been done, is unconvincing.
28. Be that as it may, the cumulative effect of the
above discussion is that the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner have failed to persuade the
Court regarding the veracity or merit of the case put
up by the petitioner. The demand of the respondent
authorities for the payment of the Bond penalty is
perfectly justified and legitimate.
29. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons stated hereinabove, the petition fails and is
rejected.
30. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as
to costs.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment