Disposed

Harish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Service Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2024WRIA/11327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An in-service Provincial Medical Services doctor admitted to a DMRD diploma under a 2017 policy was ordered to pay a Rs.1 Crore bond for not committing to ten years of post-course service, on the ground that his bond applied only to degree courses. The court found the respondents' instructions indicated a typographical error and directed filing of affidavits while staying the recovery interimly.

What did the court decide?

Counter/rejoinder affidavit timelines set; recovery of Rs.1 Crore bond money stayed until next date of listing.

Harish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11327 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Harish Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Service Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Shweta Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The arguments of the petitioner were duly considered and the following orders were passed on 28.11.2024:-

¶8

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶9

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the demand raised by the respondents from the petitioner for depositing an amount of Rs.1 Crore, considering the fact that petitioner has not complied with the Bond filled by him at the time of admission to the Diploma in Radio Diagnosis (DMRD) course taken by the petitioner as "in service" candidate.

¶10

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had completed his MBBS and subsequently joined Provincial Medical Services on 20.10.2014 and rendered service in the department at Muzaffarnagar till 2016 after which he was transferred to Meerut.

¶11

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that that Government has issued a policy on 03.04.2017, granting weighting to the Doctors of PMS cadre who have completed MBBS course and have opted for pursuing Post Graduate degree course. The petitioner taking advantage of Government Order dated 03.04.2017 and participating in NEET PG, 2018 for taking PG Degree/Diploma course for taking admission to Diploma course in DMRD. The petitioner also submitted a Bond stating that he would be liable to pay Rs.1 Crore in case he does not continue in service for 10 years after completing his course. It is in execution of the Bond filled by the petitioner that the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 and 22-23.10.2024 have been passed.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that perusal of Government Order dated 03.04.2017 as well as

¶13

Bond filled by the petitioner at the time of seeking admission and participating in NEET PG, 2018, would indicate that said Bond applies only to the persons who are seeking admission to the Degree course i.e. MD or MS and does not extend to Diploma Courses which has been taken by the petitioner.

¶14

6. In order to canvass his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, it is clearly evident that the degree course is for a period of three years period while Diploma courses are for two years period and course undertaken by the petitioner is included in the schedule to the rules framed by the Medical Council of India at Sl. No. 21, which includes Diploma in DMRD.

¶15

7. The question before this Court is as to whether petitioner would be liable to pay the Bond amount of Rs.1Crore for not continuing in service of the State for period of ten years after conclusion of the said course. The question which arises is as to whether condition of Bond is only for the candidates who have completed MD/MS course and will not apply to the persons as the petitioner who have completed Diploma course?

¶16

8. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted five days time to seek instructions with regard to the facts as discussed herein above.

¶17

9. List this case on 06.12.2024, in top ten cases."

¶18

Learned Standing counsel has obtained written instructions from Director General, Training, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Lucknow stating that in all the government orders the word 'post graduation' is used and even in the order dated 22.10.2024 and 17.10.2024 the word 'post graduation' is clearly defined as degree and other courses) and in the order dated 3.4.2017 due to typographical mistake the word 'post degree' has been used. Clearly the respondents admitted that while processing the case for admission 'in service candidate, the word ' post graduate degree' has been used and in case there was any typographical error then the same could have been rectified. There is no mention as to whether the said error has been rectified and in absence of any rectification the word used in the government orders will have to be considered interpreted. In light of the above, a case for consideration of the case of the petitioner is made out.

¶19

Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶20

List on 30.1.2025.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, recovery of bond money from the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

¶22

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 RKM.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Service Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Service Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Balwant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Govt. Lko and 2 Others

Brij Bhushan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Pramod Kumar Goswami vs State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Up Rural Dev. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Pratap Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rakesh Kumar Nayak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home (Police Services) Lko. and 4 Others

Fajaley Haque Usmani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Govt. Lko. and 2 Others