Dr. Varun Gupta and 10 Others vs State O U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Education and Training and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1546 of 2025

¶3

Dr. Varun Gupta And 10 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State O U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Education And Training And 2 Others

¶7

ucaon n ranng n	ers	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vijay Dixit, D.P. Kumar Mishra, Pawan Bhaskar	Dutt Tiwari, Mohd. Anas	Manish Khan,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shubha Mohammad Haid	m Tripathi, er Rizv	Syed

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

(1) Heard Mr.Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. S.M.H.Rizvi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Mr.Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

¶11

(2) Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.01.2025 with a further prayer being made for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioners and other candidates of MDS 2020 to participate in counselling for appointment as per Scheme of 2018 and as per past practice giving preference for change/upgradation of their seats.

¶12

(3) It has been submitted that by means of impugned order dated 29.01.2025, guidelines have been issued for appointment under Compulsory Government Service Bond for candidates who have completed their Post-Graduation Courses for MD/MS and MDS (Masters in Dental Surgery) 2021 and NEET PG 2022 (Diploma). It is submitted that in terms of Scheme, candidates are compulsorily required to undergo Government Service under a bond for a period of two years. It is submitted that policy also mandates an opportunity to be granted to all such candidates for upgradation of their seats/institutes.

¶13

(4) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since preference with

¶14

WRIA No. 1546 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

regard to such option was not provided to petitioners, instant petition was filed challenging such directions and by means of interim order dated 04.02.2025, opposite parties were restrained from taking any final decision/appointment in pursuance of impugned order.

¶17

(5) It is submitted that since policy itself has been challenged on grounds of being arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, petition would survive even if petitioners have completed their bond period of two years.

¶18

(6) Learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the basis of instructions, however, submits that all petitioners have subsequently completed their Government Service required under bond for a period of two years whereafter relieving orders have also been issued on 13.10.2025 with respect to some of them. It is submitted that since aforesaid period of bond service with State Government has already expired, petition has become infructuous since now there cannot be any occasion for petitioners to upgrade their seats/institutes.

¶19

(7) Upon consideration of submissions learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that primary ground raised in present petition was with regard to upgradation of seats/institutes to petitioners during their bond service of two years. Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn attention to Government Order dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure - 3) to submit that it prescribes minimum period of two years of bond service but not maximum period, due to which bond period may be extended beyond two years as well.

¶20

(8) However, upon perusal of Government Order dated 07.03.2018, it is evident that it clearly prescribes extent of bond service as two years. There does not appear to be any order or notification whereby aforesaid bond period can be extended. Since admittedly all petitioners, except petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 8 have completed their bond service of two years, their opportunity of seeking upgradation of seats/institutions has obviously lapsed. It is pertinent to mention that present petition has not been filed as a Public Interest Litigation.

¶21

(9) At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners has drawn attention to Government Order dated 10.03.2025 to submit that during pendency of

¶22

WRIA No. 1546 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

this petition, the aforesaid Government Order provides that Certificate of Specialty required to be issued to petitioners should be regarding the course in which they have completed their MDS.

¶25

(10) A perusal of Government Order dated 10.03.2025 clearly indicates the aspect that relevant Experience Certificates are not being issued for their specialty courses as per MDS Course for such candidates who have completed their bond service from Government Hospitals, apart from King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow. Therefore, a direction has been issued to ensure that such certificates are issued in accordance with the Specialty Courses undertaken by such candidates in their MDS Course.

¶26

(11) In view of Government Order dated 10.03.2025, opposite parties are directed to issue Experience Certificates of petitioners for Specialty Courses which were undertaken by them in MDS Course. This direction is being issued in view of submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that three of petitioners, namely, Dr. Khusbu Gupta/petitioner No.5, Dr. Ramya Selvam/petitioner No.6 and Dr. Renu Singh/petitioner No.8 would be completing their bond service in April, 2026, 07.11.2025 and 19.10.2025 respectively.

¶27

(12) In view of aforesaid, this Court has not adjudicated upon validity of Government Order under challenge which is left open.

¶28

(13) With the aforesaid direction(s), petition stands disposed of .

¶29

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶30

October 16, 2025 lakshman

¶31

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Varun Gupta and 10 Others v. State O U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Education and Training and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Varun Gupta and 10 Others v. State O U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Education and Training and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Awantika Vs Tarun kumar Pathak

C/M Shri Narmadeshwar Inter Collage, Raebareli Thru. Manager Shiv Karan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, Lko and 6 Others

Sanskriti University Mathura Thru. Prashant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Edu. Lko. and Another

Suresh Kumar Alias Badaku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhishek Jain Vs King George'S Medical University (Kgmu), Lko. Thru. Registrar and Another

Saira Bano Vs Mukarib