Madras High Court

Dr.Roopa K vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 January, 2021

1/9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 29.1.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P.No.785 of 2021

Dr.Roopa K. Petitioner

vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. Director of Medical Education (DME)
Directorate of Medical Education,
156, Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

3. Dean,
Govt. Kilpauk Medical College,
Chennai 600 010. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd
respondent authorities to return all original certificates of the petitioner
that were submitted by her at the time of her admission to MD
(General Medicine) course on 30.5.2015 at the third respondent
college together with the petitioner's original Post Graduation i.e.,
M.D.(General Medicine) Certificates.

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Priyadarshini for
Mr.R.Arumugam

For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan, Special Government Pleader

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/9

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing respondents 2

and 3 to return the petitioner’s original certificates that were submitted

by her at the time of admission to MD (General Medicine) course on

30.5.2015 at the third respondent college together with the

petitioner's original Post Graduation i.e., M.D.(General Medicine)

Certificates.

2. The petitioner, who completed MBBS degree course, intended

to pursue his MD (General Medicine) course conducted by the 2 nd

respondent as a non service candidate. She also got admitted in the

year 2015 and at the time of admission, she produced all the original

certificates with the respondent. One of the conditions in the said

course is that on successful completion of that course, the candidate is

liable to serve Government of Tamil Nadu on request for a period of

two years or else the candidate is liable to pay Rs.40 lakhs if the

candidate failed to serve the Government despite an offer of

employment is made. The candidates have also to execute a bond with

this condition which is very much incorporated under clause 56(g) of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

the Prospectus of the Course. The petitioner has also executed a bond

on 30.5.2015 at the time of admission. The petitioner successfully

completed the Course as on 31.10.2018, but the State Government

has not provided any employment as per the bond, but,at the same

time the third respondent has not returned the original certificates

even after the bond period of two years.

3. Mr.E.Manoharan, learning Special Government Pleader took

notice for the respondents and filed written instructions provided to

him in this regard. He would submit that as per clause 56(g) of the

Prospectus, it is made clear that in all these Post Graduation Courses,

the Government is spending huge money and therefore, this condition

of serving for two years in Government is incorporated in the

Prospectus itself and the candidates should also execute a bond to that

effect that in case if they fail to serve the Government for a period of

two years as agreed, then they have to pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs in

lieu of that bond. He would further submit that this clause has also

been challenged and the issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and therefore as per the above said bond executed by

the petitioner, the original certificates of the petitioner has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

detained.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit

that only depending upon the requirement and vacancy position, the

Government is engaging the services of similarly placed candidates

and in many such cases, the candidates have opted to continue the

Government Service even after expiry of the bond period of 2 years

considering the current pandemic situation and the consequent

necessity of their services and therefore, the welfare of the public at

large also needs to be taken care.

5. This court paid its attention to the rival submissions made and

also perused the available records.

6. The petitioner was admitted for the Course in May 2015 and

executed the bond on 30.5.2015. She also completed the Course on

31.10.2018, but, the petitioner was not offered any employment by

the State Government till today.

7. The respondents, without offering any employment for more

than two years, are not entitled to retain the certificates of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

petitioners by referring the bond executed by the petitioner.

8. Clause 56(5) of the Prospectus of the Course itself clearly says

that “they shall serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of

not less than two years, in the posting issued by Government, "if

required”. The words "if required" contained in the clause dilutes

its strength. The clause further insists for reckoning of such service

period from the date of completion of the course by the candidate.

Therefore, reckoning of such period cannot an eternal one and the

candidates, after having waited for two long years, cannot be

compelled to wait for any more number of years on the ground of their

necessity which may arise at any later point of time by losing all their

opportunities.

9. A similar issue was also dealt by this court in W.P.No.16829 of

2020 and by following the order passed by a Division Bench in

W.A.No.799 of 2019, this court disposed of the Writ Petitions with a

direction to the third respondent to return the original certificates

considering the representation of the petitioners.

10. In W.A.No.799 of 2019 and batch, the State of Tamil Nadu

and another vs. P.S.Sairam and others, the Division Bench of this court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

decided the issue as under:-

“103. Our conclusions, therefore, are:

vii. The candidates who have not been offered

appointment within the period of two years

would be entitled to release of their certificates

accordingly.

104. We have, therefore, no option but to

set aside the impugned judgment dated

1.10.2018, but with a direction that in the event

the period of two years has passed by after the

passing out of the candidates without any offer

of employment, then, in that

event, they are not bound by the terms of the

bonds executed by them and are consequently

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

entitled for return of certificates. It is further

clarified that this period will have to be sorted

out in respect of all the candidates together with