Dr. Satya Prakash Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1220 of 2025

Petitioner :- Dr. Satya Prakash Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Pandey,Nutan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition with regard to the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents seeking to recover the bond amount of Rs. One Crore from the petitioner for violating the terms and conditions of the bond executed by the petitioner at the time of admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course.

¶7

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officers in the Provincial Medical and Health Services of the State of UP and took the benefit of the Government Order dated 03.04.2017 for seeking admission to the Post Graduate Medical Education Degree Course. At the time of seeking a 'No Objection Certificate' from the State Government, the petitioner had executed a bond provided by the respondents. According to which the petitioner was to serve for a further period of ten years after conclusion of his Post Graduate Medical Education Degree Course in the State Service, failure to the condition of bond, he had undertaken to pay an amount of Rs. One crore.

¶8

Undoubtedly, the petitioner has availed the benefit of the said Government Order and according to the respondents, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the bond and consequently, they are seeking to recover an amount of rupees one crore as arrears of land revenue.

¶9

The petitioner has assailed the said order on various grounds apart from the fact that the said conditions are unconscionable and he has made sign over standard form of contract terms of which are clearly unconscionable. It has been further submitted that the respondents themselves have not adhered to the terms and conditions and recovery, if any, should have been made by them but not by arrears of land revenue as there was no provision in the conditions or the Government Order where the said amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶10

Apart from the above, the matter pertaining to the recovery of the aforesaid amount and the conditions fixed by the respondents for serving in the state service for ten years was duly considered by the Supreme Court in the Bunch of Writ Petition the leading being Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents & Others Versus Union of India & Others reported in 2019 Volume 8 SCC 607 , where the Supreme Court at paragraph 19 has held as under:-

¶11

"However, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the doctors that the period of compulsory service and the exit should be reasonable. The State Governments and Armed Forces Medical College are directed to consider imposing the conditions of compulsory service period of two years in default of which the Doctors shall recompense the Government by paying Rs. 20 lacks".

¶12

It has been submitted that this aspect was duly considered by the Supreme Court and it was expected that the State Government would duly amend their guidelines and government orders and uniformity with the directions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the respondents cannot be directed to enforce the bond conditions.

¶13

The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that at the time of admission, the petitioner himself has voluntary executed the bond and therefore, there is no reason for him to escape the liability when the time has come for serving in the state service for ten years and non-compliance with the said conditions paying an amount of Rs. One Crore.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents & Others (supra) , matter requires consideration.

¶15

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of three weeks. The petitioner shall have two weeks' time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

As an interim measure, it is provided that the in case the petitioner tenders an amount of Rs.20 lacs by a demand draft in favour of Senior Registrar of this Court, within four weeks from today, the same shall be shall be kept in an interest bearing scheme in any Nationalized Bank which shall be subject to further orders/directions of this Court. In case, the amount is deposited, no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner

¶17

during pendency of the present writ petition.

¶18

List and connect this case with Writ A No. 41 of 2025 - Dr. Kapil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secretary, Medical Education, Secretariat Lucknow and 3 Others.

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 30.1.2025 RKM.

¶21

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

Dr. Satya Prakash Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Satya Prakash Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Achal and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and Others

Sukh Dev Vs Tehsildar Tarabganj, Gonda and Others

Khushi Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko. and Others

Dr. Avinash Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lucknow and Others

Dr. Muktakar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 6 Others

Nitin Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Sectt. Medical Edu. Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others