Dr. Gourav Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Medical and Health Services, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2025WRIA/3311/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged demand of bond amount for discontinuing DMRD course. Court observed that Government Order applies to PG degrees (MD/MS) and not diploma courses. Stayed impugned demand order pending final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 demanding bond recovery.

What the court decided

Dr. Gourav Pratap Singh vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3311 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Gourav Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Medical And Health Services, Lko. And 4 Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shweta Shukla,Vinod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the impugned order, the respondents have demanded a sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- from the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the bond filled by him at the time of admission in the diploma in Radio Diagnosis (DMRD) course taken by the petitioner as "in service" candidate.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that identical controversy arose in another case i.e. Writ A No. 11327/2024 "Harish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others" , wherein while passing the detailed order and considering the written instructions provided to the Standing Counsel, this Court stayed the recovery of the bond amount from the petitioner.

¶8

It is also submitted that the present petitioner's case is identical to that of the petitioner in the aforementioned case and therefore, he seeks parity with the said order.

¶9

On the other hand, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned

¶10

Standing Counsel, has raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner cannot resile from his commitment after executing the bond. He asserts that if the petitioner fails to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the bond, he is obligated to deposit the agreed amount.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

From perusal of the Government Order dated 03.04.2017 as well as bond which is on record, it is admitted case of the respondents that the government order is only applicable for the post graduate degree holder i.e. MD/MS and there is no mention of diploma courses.

¶13

It also appears from the record that, despite being fully aware of this, the respondents permitted the petitioner to secure a government seat in the NEET PG Diploma Course. As such, the petitioner, being a diploma holder, does not fall within the ambit of the bond or the Government Order. Consequently, no demand can be made from the petitioner under the conditions of the executed bond.

¶14

The interim order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Writ A No. 11327 of 2024 is extracted below:-

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that that

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

The matter, prima facie, requires consideration.

¶26

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the State within a further period of four weeks.

¶27

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶28

List on 09.05.2025.

¶29

Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 20.02.2025, contained in Annexure No. 1, is stayed.

¶30

Order Date :- 27.3.2025 R.C.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Gourav Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Medical and Health Services, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Dr. Gourav Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Medical and Health Services, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhimsen Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajeet Yadav @ Ankit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shashikala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rohan Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramkaran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Nagendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.