WPSB/446/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 1553 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                           AT NAINITAL
     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH
                          CHAUHAN

                                   AND

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

               WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 446 OF 2020

                         22ND APRIL, 2021
   Between:
   Dr. Aditya Kumar                                   ...Petitioner.

   and

   State of Uttarakhand and others.                  ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate.

   Counsel for the respondents           :Mr.   S.S.   Chauhan,
                                         learned         Deputy
                                         Advocate General for
                                         the       State     of
                                         Uttarakhand.

   The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

The petitioner has raised the following prayers

before this Court:-

a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus directing the respondents to

relieve the petitioner from the service bond

taking into consideration the period served at

Government Doon Medical College & Hospital,

Dehradun, at District Hospital, Uttarkashi and at

Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar and

the time wasted by the respondents in not

appointing / posting the petitioner after his

completion of postgraduate Medical Course as

served under bond OR IN ALTERNATIVE Either to

relieve the petitioner from service bond of two

years after charging the difference of tuition fee,

i.e., remaining tuition fees in proportionate to

the period the petitioner has not served under

the service bond after deducting the period

served at Government Doon Medical College &

Hospital, Dehradun, at District Hospital,

Uttarkashi and at Shri Dev Suman Hospital,

Narendranagar under bond, in case the time

wasted by the respondents in giving

appointment to the petitioner after his post

graduation is not counted as period served under

bond Or to allow the petitioner either to serve

for the remaining period of bond of two years,

after deducting the period served at Government

Doon Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun, at

District Hospital, Uttarkashi and at Shri Dev

Suman Hospital, Narendranagar under bond, in

case the time wasted by the respondents in

giving appointment to the petitioner after his

post graduation is not counted as period served

under bond or to pay for the remaining time to

be served under bond, in case the time wasted

by the respondent in giving appointment to the

petitioner after his post graduation is not

counted as period served under bond.

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

directing the respondents to count the period

wasted by the respondents in not giving

appointment to the petitioner and allowing him

to sit idle as the served period under the service

bond.

c. Such other relief be granted which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

d. Award cost to the petitioner.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the

academic session 2013-14, the petitioner took admission

in the Post-Graduate Medical Course in the Government

Medical College, Haldwani, District-Nainital. At the time

of admission, the petitioner was asked to fill a bond.

According to the bond, the petitioner was required to

serve two years of service "in the hilly region of the

State". In case, the bond was entered between the

petitioner and the State, the petitioner was entitled to a

subsidized tuition fees of Rs. 60,000/- per annum

against the full tuition fee of Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum.

The petitioner did, indeed, enter into a bond with the

State. The bond clearly states that the petitioner would

be required to serve the State in "the hilly region" for a

period of two years. On 02.08.2016, he completed his

Post-Graduation course in Anesthesiology. After

completion of the M.D. Degree, on 17.10.2016 the

petitioner was directed to join the Female Hospital at

Pithoragarh under the service bond. The petitioner was

informed about the order dated 17.10.2016, by letter

dated 21.10.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3.

Subsequently, on 19.07.2017 the petitioner was posted

as Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology at the

Government Doon Medical College & Hospital.

Consequently, on 26.08.2019, the petitioner joined the

said post. On 29.08.2019 and 19.05.2020, the

petitioner informed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 about the

fact that he is working as an Assistant Professor,

Anesthesiology at the said hospital. On 06.06.2020, the

petitioner applied for his M.D. Degree. On 09.06.2020,

he submitted a representation to the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 for setting him free from the bond. However the

petitioner claims that so far, he has not heard anything

from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to setting him

free from the bond. The petitioner has also represented

to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the service rendered by

him from 19.07.2019 should be included as a service

under the bond. However, even the said representation

has fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, vide letter dated

09.07.2020, the petitioner was appointed at District

Hospital, Uttarkashi. He served in Uttarkashi till

30.10.2020. Vide order dated 17.10.2020, he has been

transferred to Shri Dev Suman Hospital, Narendranagar.

Presently, he is working at Narendranagar.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case the

service rendered by him from 19.07.2019 till his transfer

on 09.07.2020 were to be considered as a service under

the bond, he would have completed the term of two

years of service under the bond. Therefore, he would be

entitled to be set free from the bond. However, the

respondents have refused to do so. Hence, the present

petition before this Court.

4. Mr. Lalit Belwal, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that while others have been granted

the benefit of having served in non-hilly regions of the

State, the petitioner is not being granted the said benefit

by the respondents. Therefore, a hostile discrimination is

being practiced against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the

learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand, submits that the bond entered into

between the petitioner and the State is extremely

categorical that the medical student, who is being

provided the subsidized tuition fee, will be required to

serve the State for two years in the "hilly region". Since

District-Dehradun does not fall within the "hilly region" of

the State, and is, in fact, in "the plain areas" of the

State, the service rendered by the petitioner at District-

Dehradun cannot be counted as a service rendered

under the bond. Moreover, the concept of equality does

not exist in the negative sense. Merely because the

service rendered by others in the plain areas may have

been considered as having served under the bond, the

same benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner.

According to the learned counsel, the parties are bound

by the bond entered into between them. Therefore, this

Court cannot possibly direct the State to violate the

contract. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that

the prayer made by the petitioner should be rejected by

this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and

perused the record.

7. It is, indeed, trite to state that the parties to a

contract are bound by the terms of the contract. A bare

perusal of the bond executed by the petitioner on

26.08.2013 clearly reveals that "a duty has been

imposed upon the petitioner to serve the State of

Uttarakhand as a Medical Officer / Specialist on contract

basis at least for a minimum period of two years in any

government hospital or health centre situated in hilly

region of the State, failing which they shall be liable

severally or jointly to pay the Government full tuition

fees of the entire M.D. / M.S. course calculated at

prevailing rate along with such interest as may be

determined by the Government." This condition

contained in the contract requires the petitioner to serve

for a minimum period of two years in the "hilly region".

8. Admittedly, District-Dehradun does not fall

within the hilly region of the State. In fact, District-

Dehradun is considered as a part of "the plain region" of

the State. Therefore, obviously the service rendered by

the petitioner in District-Dehradun cannot be counted as

a part of his service rendered under the bond. Hence,

the respondents are justified in not considering the

petitioner's service rendered in District-Dehradun as a

part of the service under the bond.

9. Needless to say, the concept of equality does not

exist in the negative sense. Merely because the

respondents may have considered the service rendered

by others in the plain region of the State as a part of the

service under the bond, the same benefit cannot be

given to the petitioner. Furthermore, this Court can

neither modify the conditions of the bond, nor direct the

respondents to commit breach of the bond. Therefore,

the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is a hostile discrimination being

practiced against the petitioner is without any

foundation.

10. For the reasons stated above, this Court

does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is,

hereby, dismissed.

11. In sequel thereto, pending application, if

any, also stands disposed of.

12. No order as to costs.

_____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 22nd April, 2021 Rathour