Allahabad High Court
Dr. Vidya K L vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. ... on 25 May, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37261
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3435 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Vidya K L
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Edu. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya,Vatsala Singh,Vivek Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Shubham Tripathi
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Condition No.2.1.3 of the Government Order dated 07.03.2018, which prescribes for execution of a bond for admission to the postgraduate course.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as contractual Assistant Professor by the respondent no.3 Institution i.e. King Georg's Medical University, U.P. Lucknow and in terms of the appointment letter as well as the Government Order, the petitioner had executed a bond. It is argued that during the period of the appointment of the petitioner with the respondent no.3, the petitioner was also selected in terms of the advertisement no.1648 dated 08.04.2022 issued by the respondent no.5 and an appointment letter was issued to her on 09.03.2023.
3. It is argued that as the appointment of the petitioner with the respondent no.3 was on contractual basis whereas the appointment offered to the petitioner by the respondent no.5 was substantive basis, the petitioner naturally want to serve with the respondent no.5, however, in view of the fact that the petitioner had executed a bond with the respondent no.3 and the documents, in original, are lying with the respondent no.3, the petitioner is being deprived of practicing her profession in terms of the appointment letter issued by the respondent no.5.
4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is as under:
(i). He submits that the condition of execution of bond is contrary to the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Contract Act, inasmuch as, the candidate is not in a position to bargain.
(ii) He further argues that the analogy, based upon which the bond is directed to be executed is faulty, inasmuch as, in the present case, the petitioner is ready and willing to serve the public in terms of the appointment letter giving appointment at the State of Jharkhand and thus, the petitioner, in any case, willing and ready to perform public service.
(iii). He thirdly argues that the provisions contained in the bond authorizing the State Government to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue is neither supported by any Act nor is justified.
(iv). He lastly argues that the quantum of bond which was got executed and is prescribed in the Government Order dated 07.03.2018 is contrary and illegal and is violative of Article 14, moreso, in view of the suggestions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2018 (Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants and Residents and others vs Union of India).
(v) The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the State should consider the request for deferring the period of action to be taken by the State Government in pursuance to the bond till the completion of the period or till the completion of the course offered to the petitioner in the State of Jharkhand.
6. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, defend the Government Order and the bond executed by the petitioner. He argues that the petitioner is bound by the terms and condition executed in the bond in pursuance to the Government Order. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Association of Medical Super Specialist Aspirants and Residents and others vs Union of India (supra) and places emphasis of para 41 of the said judgment which is as under:
"41. Taking note of the fact that certain State Governments have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the Appellants and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory bonds, we suggest that suitable steps be taken by the Union of India and the Medical Council of India to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in government institutions."
7. In the light of the said judgments, he argues that the issue with regard to the right of the Governments to get a bond executed is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus to that effect the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the points raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition and as noted by this Court were neither raised nor considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while delivering the judgment and thus to that extent, the judgment can be termed as sub silentio/ per incuriam.
9. In view of the argument raised and recorded above, this Court notices that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the respective arguments of the parties while determining the validity of the action of the State Government in demanding the bond and after considering the arguments as raised before the Supreme Court, had categorically decided in paragraph 40 that all the doctors who have executed the compulsory bond shall be bound by the conditions contained therein.
10. In view of the said directions, which are binding to this Court, I do not see any reason to interfere/ grant prayer to the petitioner as prayed in the present writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. This order has been passed in the presence of Sri Parimal Bhatt holding brief of Sri learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India, Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4.
Order Date :- 25.5.2023
akverma
