Dr. Nishant Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2360 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       W.P.(C) No. 3587 of 2020


1. Dr. Nishant Sinha
2. Dr. Tulika Sinha
3. Dr. Chandan Kumar
4. Dr. Siddalingesha R.
5. Dr. Shambhavi
6. Dr. Preetilata Tiwari
7. Dr. Shameem Ahmed
8. Dr. Deepti Tiwari
9. Dr. Apeksha Singh
10. Dr. Kanchan Mala
11. Dr. Eti Isha
12. Dr. Nurulhuda Ansari
13. Dr. Namrata Swaty
14. Dr. Nishat Ahmad
15. Dr. Gunjan Kumari
16. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Singh
17. Dr. Soofia Firdaus
18. Dr. Ruby Kumari
19. Dr. Fariha Sabeen
20. Dr. Rani Hansda
21. Dr. Hena Kausar
22. Dr. Madhumita
23. Dr. Shashi Yashi
24. Dr. Pallawit Pallav Sahay
25. Dr. Anish Deepak Baxla
26. Dr. Saurav Kumar Singh
27. Dr. Manoj Kumar Das
28. Dr. Ajay Kumar
29. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar
30. Dr. Syed Md. Sharique
31. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Raj
32. Dr. Naghma Mobin
33. Dr. Banipada Singh Sardar
34. Dr. Rakesh Ranjan
35. Dr. Reena Kumari
36. Dr. Jitendra Kumar
37. Dr. Tarun Baxla
38. Dr. Farheen Afshar
39. Dr. Amit Kumar Majhee
40. Dr. Ved Prakash
41. Dr. Vinu Kumari
42. Dr. Anitesh Kumar Gupta
43. Dr. Prachi Hansdah
44. Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh
45. Dr. Shyam Kishor Pathak
46. Dr. Navin Kumar Saha
47. Dr. Amit Anand
48. Dr. Rajeev Kumar
49. Dr. Puja Kumari
50. Dr. Vishwajeet Pratap
51. Dr. Priyanka Oraon
52. Dr. Chandan Hessa
53. Dr. Seema Singh
                                      -2-

54. Dr. Dhirendra Kumar
55. Dr. Mukhtar Ansari
56. Dr. Nitesh Kumar
57. Dr. Shweta Kumari
58. Dr. Rahul Kumar
59. Dr. Pradeep Kumar
60. Dr. Md. Nayeemuddin
61. Dr. Nisha Murmu
62. Dr. Syed Ajaz Hashmi
63. Dr. Anju Prabha Kumari
64. Dr. Anand Kumar
65. Dr. Chandra Bhushan
66. Dr. Pawan Kumar
67. Dr. Indu Shekhar
68. Dr. Priyanka
69. Dr. Pushpa
70. Dr. Neelanjali Kumari
71. Dr. Pearl Esther Minz
72. Dr. Archana
73. Dr. Mamta Madhubala Kujur
74. Dr. Sanjay Kumar
75. Dr. Lakhindra Hansda
76. Dr. Rajeev Rajan
77. Dr. Ayushman
78. Dr. Bimala Kumari
79. Dr. Abhay Kumar Yadav
80. Dr. Rita Kumari

                                                   .....   ... Petitioners
                                 -Versus-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.RIMS through Director, RIMS, Ranchi
4. MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur through Principal
                                                .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohan Dubey, Advocate For RIMS : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

Order No. 06 Dated: 15.07.2021

The present case is taken up today through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the resolution as contained in memo no.9/Chi.Maha-07-08/2014 (part-1)- 179(9) Ranchi dated 24th April, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as "resolution of 2018") is not applicable to the petitioners and they are not required to execute a new bond in accordance with the resolution of 2018 for serving within the State of Jharkhand for a period of three years or

alternatively pay penalty amount of Rs. 30 Lacs along with the stipend and other allowances paid to them in such case where bond period is not served by the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for quashing the government resolution as contained in memo no. 09/Enrollement-02- 02/2019-181(9) dated 30.07.2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand whereby an order has been issued for posting some of the petitioners on completion of their course for a period of three years in accordance with notification dated 24.04.2018.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 78- Dr. Bimala Kumari and petitioner no.79- Dr. Abhay Kumar Yadav are the Junior Resident Doctors of MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur whereas rest are the Junior Resident Doctors of RIMS, Ranchi. On 17th October, 2017, the National Board of Examinations (NBE) published an advertisement for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (Postgraduate), 2018 for admission to MD/MS/Postgraduate diploma Courses, 2018. The petitioners qualified in the said entrance test and thereafter counselling process was conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee under the Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. After completion of counselling process of several rounds, the petitioners qualified and took admission as per the terms and conditions of the resolution contained in memo no.9/Chi.Maha-07-08/2014-230 (9) Ranchi dated 22-12-2015 (hereinafter to be referred as the resolution of 2015") which was in vogue during the said period and accordingly the petitioners signed the required bond and submitted all the documents as well as the certificates in original before the RIMS, Ranchi/MGM College, Jamshedpur at the time of admission. Another resolution was issued on 24.04.2018 under the signature of the respondent no.2 making amendment to the earlier resolution dated 22.12.2015. According to the petitioners, as per Clause

(iii) of the Resolution, 2018, bonds were required to be taken from all the students of PG (medical/MDS) courses seeking admission in the Medical Colleges situated within the State of Jharkhand to the effect that an amount of Rs.30 lacs would be recovered from those students who did not intend to take admission after selection. Further, Clause (iv) of the resolution of 2018 provided that a bond would be taken from all the

students of Postgraduate (medical/M.D.S.) courses to the effect that those students who intended to leave the courses after taking admission in the midst of academic session, they would be required to deposit Rs.30 lacs along with the amount of stipend as well as other allowances received by them during the course period in one go. As per Clause (V) of resolution of 2018, the students after completion of Postgraduate course were to compulsorily serve under the Government of Jharkhand for a period of three years, failing which an amount of Rs.30 lacs along with the amount of stipend as well as other allowances received by the students during the course was to be recovered in one go.

4. It is further submitted that some of the students being aggrieved with the resolution of 2018, preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2018. The said writ petition was finally allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2020 holding that the new resolution dated 24.04.2018 would not be applicable to the petitioners of that case and they would abide by the terms of the resolution of 2015 which was in vogue at that time. After passing of the order dated 19.10.2020, the petitioners of the present case represented the respondent authorities to make the order applicable to the entire batch of 2018-2020-21 but the authorities denied the same. It is also submitted that the length of the bond period cannot be more than the academic session of two years as in the case of some of the petitioners, they opted for PG diploma courses. The respondent authorities cannot be allowed to jeopardize the future of the petitioners as many reputed institutions have an upper age limit for Senior Resident Post ranging from 33 to 37 years and due to a long service bond at Jharkhand, they will be ineligible and will not be able to work as Assistant Professors/professors at various reputed medical colleges/hospitals. The respondent authorities cannot apply two different terms and conditions upon the Junior Resident Doctors of the same batch, who took admission in the year 2018. It is further submitted that the notification dated 24.04.2018 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners retrospectively as right from the date of advertisement till the completion of the selection process, the bond pursuant to resolution dated 22.12.2015 was in force. The judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) no. 2628 of 2018 is a judgment in rem and the respondents cannot confine the applicability of the same only to the petitioners of the said case discriminating the

present petitioners and they cannot be termed as fence sitters. Their claim cannot be also termed as a stale claim when the cause of action is still surviving. The writ petition has been filed well within time as the course is still continuing. Moreover, a new cause of action has arisen after issuance of notification dated 30.07.2020 by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand in utmost disregard to the order of this Court dated 19.10.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2018.

5. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RIMs, submits that there is a clear stipulation in the bond that if there is any change in terms and conditions regarding bond, the same will be applicable as per order of the government /RIMS. Certain terms and conditions of the bond were changed and modified vide resolution dated 24.04.2018 and thereafter all the petitioners executed fresh bonds in the prescribed format without any objection. It is further submitted that having executed the second bond after going through the same carefully, the petitioners cannot challenge the stipulations contained therein at subsequent stage. The petitioners chose to challenge the conditions of the new bond after a considerable delay and thus the same should not be entertained on the ground of inordinate delay, doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. It is also submitted that the fence sitters cannot take advantage of an order passed at the initiative of others. Those who are not vigilant about their rights cannot claim the same benefits which is accorded to those who seek judicial redressal of their grievances before these become stale and thus the present writ is not maintainable and the same is fit to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners are the Junior Resident Doctors of RIMS, Ranchi/MGM, Jamshedpur and have taken admission in various Postgraduate (medical/MDS) courses. At the time of taking admission, they had filled up the bonds in terms with the resolution of 2015 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand which was in vogue during the said period. As per the said bond, refusal to take admission in the allotted medical colleges after the final round of counselling would make them ineligible for participating in the examination of the said course conducted by the

NEET Undergraduate/Postgraduate or other institutions approved by the State Government for a period of one year and if they leave the course before its completion, they would be required to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs as fine. The petitioners also signed the bond to the effect that they would serve under the Government of Jharkhand for a period of one year after completion of PG (medical/MDS) course, failing which they would deposit a fine of Rs.15 lacs. However, on 24.04.2018, the State Government came out with resolution of 2018 whereby certain amendments were carried out in the earlier resolution of 2015, particularly to the extent of enhancing the amount of bond from Rs.15 lacs to Rs.30 lacs and the period of rendering services under the Government of Jharkhand was enhanced from one year to three years. Subsequently, the petitioners were made to fill up other bonds containing the terms and conditions as per the resolution of 2018.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the similarly situated to the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2018, however the respondents have denied to apply the ratio of the judgment rendered in the said writ petition in the case of the present petitioners.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioners did not choose to challenge the conditions of the bond at the time of execution of the new bonds and as such now subsequent to passing of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2018, they should not be allowed to challenge the same.

9. Reliance has been placed by both the learned counsel for the parties on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted as under:

"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that

merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."

10. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. The exceptions to the normal rule are that if a person waits for a long time and approaches to the court after seeing the decision of his counterparts, the relief to similarly situated person may be denied on the ground of laches, delay and acquiescence. The persons, who approach the court only after seeing the decision of their counterparts, would be treated as fence-sitters.

11. This Court in the case of Dr. Abhishek Kumar Singh & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2018) has held as under:-

"9. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the conditions stipulated in the resolution of 2018 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners since at the time of their taking admission in the PG (medical/MDS) courses, the resolution of 2015 was in vogue and they had opted for RIMS, Ranchi only keeping in view the existing terms and conditions of the said resolution. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has assiduously contended that the conditions stipulated in the resolution of 2015 have been changed by the subsequent resolution of 2018 with a purpose to discourage the PG (medical/MDS) students to leave their respective courses in midway session and also to ensure proper availability of the doctors in the State of Jharkhand which is already facing acute shortage of doctors especially in the rural areas and thus, the conditions stipulated in the resolution of 2018 are in the interest of the residents of the State of Jharkhand at large.

10. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have, however, not challenged the validity of the resolution of 2018 rather they have challenged the applicability of the same upon them as it was issued after completion of the admission process and they had already taken admission in different PG (medical/MDS) courses at RIMS, Ranchi. Thus, the only question falls for consideration of this Court is, as to whether the action of the respondents in enforcing the terms and conditions of the resolution of 2018 upon the petitioners who had already taken admission in different PG (medical/MDS) courses at RIMS, Ranchi before coming into force of the said resolution, requires interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction on the ground of the same being arbitrary and unreasonable.

17. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 as the language of the said stipulation itself is not explicit to convey the meaning as suggested by him. Even if it is assumed that the aforesaid stipulation is to be understood as has been suggested by the respondent no.3, the same would be in the teeth of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. The respondents cannot be allowed to change the condition of the bonds after those were submitted by the students and the admission process was completed so as to put prejudice to the interest of the students who executed the same. Otherwise also, admittedly, the respondents have not applied the conditions of bond in terms with the resolution of 2018 upon the students of previous batches. The respondents have also failed to show any reasonable classification between the students of the fresh batch (i.e., the petitioners) whose admission process had already been completed vis-à-vis the students of the previous batches. Thus, in my view the action of the respondents in applying the conditions of bond in terms with the resolution of 2018 only upon the petitioners is arbitrary, whimsical and un-reasonable.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the resolution as contained in Memo No.9/Chi.Maha-07-08/2014 (part-1)- 179(9) dated 24th April, 2018 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners by enforcing it retrospectively and, as such, the bonds executed by them in terms with the resolution of 2018 are, hereby, quashed and set aside.

19. Since at the time of taking admission in the respective Postgraduate (medical/MDS) Courses, the petitioners had executed the bond in terms with the resolution of 2015 which was in vogue at that time, they shall abide by the terms and conditions of the same.

12. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is that the respondents cannot be allowed to change the condition of the bonds after those were submitted by the students and the admission process was completed so as to put prejudice to their interest. It has further been held that the respondents have failed to show any reasonable classification between the students of the fresh batch (i.e., the petitioners therein) whose admission process had already been completed vis-à-vis the students of the previous batches.

13. Though, this Court finally held that the resolution dated 24.04.2018 cannot be made applicable to those petitioners by applying it retrospectively, in view of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the word "applicable to the petitioners" would certainly mean to include all the students who had taken admission after furnishing the bond in terms of resolution of 2015 which was in vogue at that time.

14. I am of the view that the observations made by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2018 would be applicable to the present petitioners also being similarly situated and as such the subsequent bonds taken from the petitioners in terms with the resolution of 2018 would not apply to them. Rather, they shall abide by the terms and conditions of the resolution of 2015. The memo dated 30.07.2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand is accordingly quashed with a liberty to the said authority to re-issue a memo for posting of the petitioners in terms with the resolution of 2015.

15. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/AFR