Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Cheni Khan & Others on 1 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2023
01ST MARCH, 2024
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Appellants.
Versus
Cheni Khan & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.
Gajendra Tripathi, learned
Standing Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned
counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in
support of the delay condonation application (IA No.01 of
2023), delay condonation application is allowed, and the
delay of 125 days is condoned.
2. In the present special appeal, the only short
question for consideration is, whether the respondent, who
has done MBBS course after taking the benefit of lower fee
structure, was bound to give the bond of five years after
completing the MBBS Course, and after doing the MBBS
course, he did the MD course on his own level without taking
the benefit of lower fee structure, and he gave a bond of
three years.
3. The only question for consideration is whether both
the bonds, one is of five years and another is three years, are
to be implemented, or whether one bond for three years after
MD course, is to be implemented.
4. Since the respondents- writ petitioners have taken
the benefit of lower fee structure only in one course, i.e.
MBBS course, both the bonds are not be implemented post
completing the MD course, so the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the writ petition, and the petitioner is bound
by the bond given at the time of MD course for period of
three years, and for calculating this period of three years, the
period spent after MBBS course has to be adjusted.
5. The appellant-department was aware about the fact
that the respondents-writ petitioners have given one bond to
do five years' work in rural areas after completing MBBS
course. However, when the respondents-writ petitioners got
admission in MD course, the department consciously took a
bond to serve for three years in rural areas. Hence, the
second bond given at the time of MD course is to be now
implemented. The respondents-writ petitioners are bound by
the second bond given at the time of MD course for three
years, and they are not required to serve for five years, as
they were doing MD course without taking the benefit of
lower fee structure.
6. It is not the case of the appellants that the second
bond of three years was taken by mistake. Hence, the
respondents- writ petitioners were bound by the second bond
of three years, and the first bond of five years could neither
be added in the second bond of three years, nor could be
made part of doing five years work after doing MD course.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit
in this appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI, C.J.)
(VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.)
Dated: 01st March, 2024
NISHANT
