Madras High Court
Dr.Abinaya.S vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2025
WP No. 9846 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18-08-2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 9846 of 2025
AND
WMP NO. 11058 OF 2025
1. Dr.Abinaya.S
W/o.Dr.Sribal Selvarajan,
1660, GRN Saraswathy Apartments
H Block Poompukar Nagar
2nd Main Road, Kolathur
Chennai-600 099.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,
Health And Family Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.Directorate of Medical Education
And Research
Rep. By Its Director
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
3.Directorate Of Public Health And
Preventive Medicine
Rep. By Its Director
359, Anna Salai,
Chennai-06.
4.Directorate Of Medical And Rural
Health Services,
Rep. By Its Director
359, Anna Salai, Chennai-06.
5.Government Stanley Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
WP No. 9846 of 2025
College
Represented By Its Dean
No.1, Old Jail Road,
Chennai-600 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 5th respondent to
return the petitioner's 12th Certificate M.B.B.S. degree certificate,
M.B.B.S. mark sheets / certificate and M.D. mark sheets/ certificate.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy
For Respondent(s):Mrs.M.Sneha
Standing Counsel
For Respondents
******
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the 5th respondent to
return the petitioner's 12th Certificate M.B.B.S. degree certificate,
M.B.B.S. mark sheets / certificate and M.D. mark sheets/ certificate.
2. Heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs.M.Sneha, learned Special Counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner, after completing her M.B.B.S Degree, pursued Post
Graduate degree in MD Microbiology in the 5th respondent College
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
through All-India Quota for the academic year 2015-16. It is the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a
mandatory requirement for Post Graduate admission, the petitioner
submitted her original academic certificate including 12th Standard
Mark Sheets, M.B.B.S Degree Certificate and other certificates and has
also executed a bond for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- [Rupees Forty Lakhs
only] or agreeing to serve the Government for a period of two years.
The learned counsel would further submit that after completing her
Post Graduate study in May 2018, two months later, on 03.08.2018,
the petitioner was issued with a compulsory posting order. It is the
further submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to
join the posting and subsequently, on 25.10.2018, the 5th respondent
issued a letter directing the petitioner to either report to the 4th
respondent for duty or to pay the bond amount within fifteen days.
Now that, the learned counsel would submit that two years bond
period has already expired and that the original academic certificates
are not a commodity to keep it as a lien for the payment of a bond
amount of Rs.40 lakhs. He would further contend that if at all the
respondent intends to enforce the bond, they may do so by filing the
appropriate civil proceedings, however, the retention of the original
academic certificates is in contravention to the judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D.Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
reported in (2000) 7 SCC 264. The learned counsel would also rely
upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA.Nos.2256,
2257 & 2259 of 2022 [Dr.Nirmal M. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
and others] wherein in a similar circumstances, this Court vide order
dated 06.10.2022 directed the respondents to return the original
certificates. Further, the above said order was further clarified the
order of the learned Single Judge in WP(MD) No.14681 of 2024
[N.Thillai Mathiyarasi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others].
Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to release the original
certificates.
4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the
learned Special Counsel and would contend that the very objective of
the bond service is, to provide higher level of health service to the
economically weaker section of the Society, which is their fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the
Government having invested huge amount upon the education of the
petitioner, has every right to have the bond from those persons and
that they have got every right to retain the original certificates till they
complete the bond service or pay the bond amount. The learned
Special Counsel would further submit that the above legal position is
no longer res integra in view of the decision made in WA.No.799 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
2019 [The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.S.Sairam and others]
reported in MANU/TN/5492/2020 and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Association of Medical Superspeciality
Aspirants and Residents Vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 8
SCC 607. Hence, prayed to dismiss the instant writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
6. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, since the two years bond period
lapses in May, 2020, the petitioner is entitled to get back their original
educational certificates, notwithstanding their bond, however, the
respondents may proceed against the petitioner for recovery of a sum
of Rs.40 lakhs, and that for the purpose of recovering the said amount,
they cannot keep the academic certificates of the petitioner as a lien.
In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D.Saxena's case [cited supra]. This case
arising in respect of the retention of the litigation papers as a lien to
pay the professional fees. In the above circumstances, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has arrived at a conclusion that the Advocate has no
lien in respect of the litigation papers. Admittedly, in the above case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not deal about the enforcement of any
bond, as dealt in the present writ petition.
7. We must keep in mind that, the precedents are only a
stepping stone and not an idle point. Now the contention of the
petitioner is that in order to have a lien under Section 171 and Section
148 of the Indian Contract Act read with 27 of Sale of Goods Act, the
goods must be identifiable of an article which can ordinarily come to
the market to be bargained and sold, and known to the market as
such. Apart from that, by referring the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in WA.No.2256, 2257 & 2259 of 2022 [Dr.Nirmal M. Vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu], this Court directed the respondents to return the
original certificates vide order dated 06.10.2020. But, the above
judgment has not considered the earlier Division Bench order in
P.S.Sairam's case [cited supra].
8. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Court, one of
the member of the Division Bench, while sitting in Single, the learned
Single Judge has observed that though in P.S.Sairam's case [cited
supra], the Division Bench has sustained the action of the Government
to retain the academic certificates by referring the judgement of
Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
Residents's case [cited supra], and that the above referred Supreme
Court judgment has never dealt about the retention of the educational
certificates. Therefore, as per the R.D.Saxena case [cited supra] and
as per Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, the academic certificates
cannot be retained by the respondents, and the respondents may only
proceed against the executant of the bond for the recovery of the bond
amount. In support of the finding, the learned Single Judge has also
relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.Muthukamatchi Vs. The
Director of Technical Education reported in 2013 (1) CTC 595,
wherein this Court has held that the educational certificate is a
property of the student. Therefore, such certificates cannot be dealt
like a Fixed Deposit receipt to claim a general lien. The above
judgment has also held that the College has no authority to retain the
certificates, when a student leaves the course in the midstream.
9. Before we proceed further, it is appropriate to refer the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.S.Sairam's case [cited
supra], wherein when a similar argument as confronted by the learned
Single Judge was put forth before the Hon'ble Division Bench, after
taking cue from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents
[cited supra] has held in paragraph 93 as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
“93.This argument has to be rejected, in as much as it is
true that Regulations of the University Grants Commission on
Educational Institutions are binding, but in the present case,
the matter would be governed by such Regulations and Rules
that pertain to medical education specifically. The lien on
certificates in the present case is an outcome of a voluntary
contract between the candidate and the State and the Medical
College, where the retention is only for a limited purpose to
ensure that the candidate after passing out serves the
interest of the State for the period indicated in the bond. As
to what is the nature of the contract or bailment need not be
necessarily gone into, as that has neither been debated, nor it
would be now relevant to decide, as such conditions of
retention have been voluntarily accepted and authorized by
the petitioners and have been held to be constitutionally
permissible by a detailed enunciation of law by the Apex
Court referred to herein above. To reiterate, the said issue
now stands foreclosed on principles of estoppel by conduct
and acquiescence with the pronouncement of the Apex Court.
They cannot be questioned by the petitioners any longer.”
10. According to the above judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench
has held that the lien on certificates is an outcome of a voluntary
contract between the candidate and the State and the Medical College,
and that when the retention is only for a limited purpose to ensure that
the candidate after passing out to serve the interest of the State for
the period indicated in the bond. But, while the learned Single Judge
differing from the above judgment, has relied upon the judgment of
R.D.Saxena's case [cited supra] and has held in N.Thillai
Mathiyarasi's case [cited supra] that there is no reference about the
retention of academic certificates in Association of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents case [cited supra], and
proceeded further to observe that there is no dilemma to ignore the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
Division Bench judgment by following the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment in R.D.Saxena case [cited supra].
11. It is well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of
the higher forum is per incuriam, as a judicial discipline and propriety,
the same has to be followed. The learned counsel for the petitioner
harp upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in N.Thillai
Mathiyarasi's case [cited supra] and would submit that when the
Hon'ble Supreme Court did not say anything about the academic
certificates, the Division Bench in P.S.Sairam's case [cited supra]
cannot permit the retention of the academic certificates. While
harmoniously perusing the judgment of P.S.Sairam's case [cited
supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of the ratio laid
down in paragraph 17 of the Association of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents case [cited supra], which
deals about the jurisdiction of the State Government to impose a
condition. The same is extracted as under:-
“I. Jurisdiction of the State Government
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
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.”
12. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the notification issued by the State Government imposing a
condition of execution of a compulsory bond is intra vires. According to
the above ratio, the Government has got power to direct the student
to execute a bond, with a mutual covenant between the executant and
executor. Therefore, when the petitioner himself has voluntarily
surrendered the academic certificates and executed the bond and
accepted to allow the retention until the completion of the bond service
period of two years, or until the payment of the bond amount of Rs.40
lakhs, now cannot turn around and would say that the academic
certificate cannot be dealt as goods, is illegal and contrary to the
privity of contract.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
13. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the petitioner who
voluntarily accepts that too after fully knowing the consequences of
retention of educational certificates till the completion of bond service,
cannot now say that the above clause will impinge upon her right. It is
pertinent to mention that such condition was approved and upheld by
the Division Bench based upon the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a return of original
documents based upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
Thillai Mathiyarasi case [cited supra]. It is appropriate to refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and
another Vs. Justice R.A.Mehta and others reported in (2013) 3
SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has explained as to how the precedent
has to be followed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even
badly argued or inadequately considered or fallacious, unreasoned
judgement, still the same cannot lose its presidential value. When this
Court, after following the ratio in Association of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents case [cited supra] has
arrived at a conclusion, in a case where the bond was put to challenge,
that the retention of academic certificates is valid, this Court is bound
by the Division Bench judgment.
14. It is relevant to refer the object behind the bond service. As
the Government invested huge amount upon the petitioner to make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
her professionally equipped by educating in a Post Graduate degree
with an undertaking to serve the Nation for a period of two years,
there is a duty cast upon the State to protect such public money by all
means from the persons such as the petitioner. Therefore, this Court
absolutely does not find any merits in the submissions of the petitioner.
15. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. The
petitioner is directed to send request for posting order to the
respondents within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On such request, the respondents are directed
to issue posting order within a further period of one week thereafter to
serve the remaining bond service. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
12-09-2025
kmi
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
To
1.The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,
Health And Family Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.Directorate of Medical Education
And Research
Rep. By Its Director Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010.
3.Directorate Of Public Health And
Preventive Medicine
Rep. By Its Director
359, Anna Salai, Chennai-06.
4.Directorate Of Medical And Rural
Health Services,
Rep. By Its Director
359, Anna Salai, Chennai-06.
5.Government Stanley Medical
College
Represented By Its Dean
No.1, Old Jail Road,
Chennai-600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
kmi
Pre delivery order in
AND
12-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:00:56 pm )
