Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2926 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 June, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal

                       13th June 2025
           Writ Petition No. 1014 of 2020 (M/S)

Vandana Prasad
                                    ............... Petitioner
                           Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
                               ............Respondents

Along with connected matters Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel Counsel for the State: Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel (Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

1. The bond condition for admission was challenged earlier in Writ Petition No. 253 of 2013 (M/S) decided on 29.08.2025, and in terms thereof a subsequent petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 394 of 2019 (M/S) was also decided on 23.05.2019. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge a bunch of special appeals were filed by the State, the leading one was SPA No. 224 of 2019 and all the appeals were allowed on 31.07.2019 with the following directions:

"30. In case the respondents-writ petitioners are willing to serve in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand, it is open to them to join duty in terms of the offer of employment to be made by the State Government. In case the respondents-writ petitioners do not wish to exercise such an option, and do not join duty within the time stipulated in the offer to be made by the appellants-State, it is open to the State Government to recover the differential fee amount (i.e. Rs. 2,20,000 minus Rs. 15,000/- per annum for students who secured admission in the year 2011-12 and Rs. 4,00,000/- minus Rs. 40,000/- per annum for students who secured

admission in the year 2013-14) along with interest @ 18% per annum."

2. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, passed in special appeals, another SPA No. 917 of 2019 was also preferred which was also decided in terms of the judgment dated 31.07.2019. The State preferred bunch of Civil Appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the leading one is Civil Appeal no. 4725 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 12372 of 2021), State of Uttarakhand vs. Neetu Verma and another and all the appeals preferred by the State were dismissed. Para no. 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment are being reproduced herein as under:-

"18. On a plain reading of the entire judgment, we have not been able to lay our hand on any specific finding returned by this Court in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants (supra) on the power of the State Government to impose additional conditions on the students admitted against 15% All India quota. With utmost respect at out command, we are bound by the dictum of the three-Judge Bench in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra)

19. Following the principles laid down therein, we have no reason to doubt that the vies taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is partly erroneous. The question that ought to have been considered by the High Court was whether the State could through its G.O. dated 09.09.2009 impose the condition of serving in the inaccessible/extremely inaccessibly hilly areas even on the students who are admitted to MBBS course against 15% All-India quota. While analysing such questions, some hypothetical eventualities ought to have been considered by a Court. For instance, a meritorious student from a southern state will have no difficulty in pursuing his MBBS court in a Government Medical College

located in North India, as the entire course curriculum will be imparted in English language and the peers will also be well-conversant with that language. However, the situation may be entirely different if such MBBS graduates are asked to serve in a Government Hospital located in a remote rural area of a northern state? There is every likelihood of there being some gap in communication between the doctor and patient in such an eventuality. While it is highly desirable laudable in the interest of national integrity to introduce the concept of service outside the home State, it would necessitate a policy decision after due deliberation amongst all stakeholders and specialists throughout the country. A uniform policy decision for which the Union of India may have to take the lead role, can effectively resolve this quandary.

22. Keeping all the attending circumstances in view, the Authorities of the Medical College are directed to calculate the interest payable by each student admitted against All India quota at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of fee of Rs. 2.20 lakhs or Rs. 4 lakhs per annum. It is directed that the Authorities of the Medical College will be at liberty to display the orders on the website and that shall be taken as a communication to each student. The respondent- students shall be liable to pay the arrears, along with the interest, within four months from the date of communication of such order. In the event of any delay, the State shall be at liberty to recover penal interest as may be decided by the executing court.

23. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in the State appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed.

24. However, there being arguable issues, pertaining to the powers and the extent of exercise of such power by the State in respect of a student admitted

in the State-owned Government Medical College under the All India quota, the question of law is kept open, which can be examined threadbare in an appropriate case."

3. Another Civil Appeal was also preferred by one Ravisha Choudhary against the same judgment of Division Bench dated 09.12.2019 passed in Special Appeal No. 917 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the said Civil Appeal on 06.01.2025. The relevant extract of this order is being reproduced herein as under:-

"4. After passing of the said order by this Court, the appellant has deposited the differential amount. Therefore, CA No. /2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 3046 of 2020) payment of interest is the only issue for determination before us.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. On consideration of submissions and material placed on record, it reveals that the appellant immediately after clearing MBBS was required to serve the hilly regions of Uttarakhand for a period of five years, or otherwise in terms of the bond furnished by her on undertaking dated 15.12.2012, Rs. 30 lacs with interest had to be paid to the Government. Since the issue is now limited on quantum of interest and as informed, the order of the High Court has now been complied by making the payment as directed, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case in which a young graduate doctor has been imposed a condition to pay the amount along with interest @ 18% which is exorbitant even if compared to the bank rate. In the entirety of facts, we are of considered opinion that appellant should not be burdened with such exorbitant interest, and therefore, we deem it appropriate to reduce the rate of interest to 6% from 18%.

6. In view of the foregoing, the present appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of with the direction that the appellant who has now deposited the amount (differential fee amount), shall further deposit the interest amount at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of two months from today. Further, on deposit of the interest amount, the MBBS degree, marksheet and other relevant documents lying with the college shall be returned to the appellant. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

On perusal of the judgment dated 06.01.2025, passed in the case of Ravisha Choudhary the interest as determined by the High Court has been reduced from 18% to 6% in respect of those who already deposited differential fee amount in terms of the Division Bench order dated 09.12.2019.

4. Mr. Ajmani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner of WPMS Nos. 1006/1015/1016/1189 and 1190 of 2020 have already deposited the differential fee amount and they are ready to pay the interest amount @ 6%, as ordered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. Let both the parties may calculate the interest amount and furnish before this Court by 18.06.2025.

6. Put up this matter on 18.06.2025.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) Parul