Partly allowed

Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2012WPC/586/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of Rules requiring rural service bonds for All India quota medical PG admittees. The High Court held that such requirements cannot be enforced on candidates selected via All India quota, following the Supreme Court's precedent in Anand S. Biji, while upholding the rules' validity for others.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing State respondents not to insist on or compel execution of rural service bonds by candidates admitted via All India quota.

Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and Ors. Vs… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

4/<br>G)

¶2

Wan^Eancih

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶4

‘éu‘:

¶5

~ “MIL”

¶6

:4;-

¶7

"via?

¶8

WRIT PETITION (CI No. S^'71 A 12012 ' 1. Dr. Amit Bishamlal^Vallabhani, S/o Shri Bishamla!^{NanumalVallabhani,} Aged about 28 years. Rlo 6. Gulunanak Housing^Society. Ganpati Nagar. Opp,^{ShivniketanBuilding,} Jalgaon 425001(MAHARASHTRA) {é^£ 'a m 2/, Dr‘ Ritesh Nathuji Nawkhare, _' . J a 3m^3K? m^..W S/o SIEII N.Nawkhare, Aged about 29 years, R/o Quarter No.^12/02SiteO3 Jawaharnagar Bhandara(MAHARASHTRA) 37 Dr. Saurabh Bhandge, S/o Shri Rajendra^Bhandge, Aged about 28 years, R/o c/o Rajendra^{BhandgeWardNo.2.} Dammani Colony‘^{Nawapara;Rajim} District^* Ra‘ipur (CG) ’ 4. Dr. Manishkumar^{ParasharamjiKhobragade,} Slo Parasharamji Khobragade, Aged about 29 years, R/o Sai Colony^IndiraNagar. Tumsar, District^— Bhandara (MAHARASHTRA)

¶9

Dr. Abhinandan Chandrakant^Paiil S/o Chandrakant^Patil, Aged about 30 years. R/o A Bharti lnam Dasami^Niraj, Sangii (MAHARASHTRA) 6. Dr. Amit Agrawal, S/o Shri Ramavtar Agrawal, Aged about 3O years. R/o Balaji Jewelers, Halwai^Line.

¶10

Raipur; ^District ^{- Raipur}(CG)
Dr, M Pramod Kumar,
S/o C‘ Mahadevaiah,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o House Nov 85. 5‘“ Main, ^4‘“ Cross,
Gourav Nagar, J‘P. ^{Nagar, 7m Phase,}
Bangalore (KARNATAKA) ⁵⁶⁰⁰⁷⁸
Dr. Satish Kumar ^Jyoti,
S/o Shri Rajesh Prasad,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o c/o Sudarshan ^Prasad‘
At Kuldeep Nagar, ^{P.O. Sada,}
Via ^—Chhapra, ^District ^{— Saran}(BIHAR)
Dr. Sangeeta Bawankure,
Aged about 29 years,
D/o Shri Jagat ^{Ram Bawankure,}
R/o Street ^—7, Shanti Nagar,
Bhiiai, District ^~Durg (CG)
Dr, Swati Ramteke,
D/o Vinayak Ramteke,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o 272 Vishwa Nagar Jaripatka,
Nagpur (MAHARASHTRA)
Dre Ashutosh Sharma,
S/o Shri Dataram Sharma,
Aged about 3O years,
R/o 3-31, MGC Colony, ^{By-pass Road,}
Buiandshahar (UTTAR PRADESH)
Dr, Vishnu Wardhan,
S/o Shri Ramrao B,St,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o MD Bellary, 15‘ Cross,
Ashwininagar, Haveri PIN 581 ^{1 10}(KARNATAKA)

¶11

/, 13. Dr, Rakesh Shivaji Tirmale, S/o S‘V Tirmale. Aged about 29 years, R/o Flat No.401 Anuradha Building, Sankeshwar Complex Kalyan (MAHARASHTRA) 14. Dr, Vivek Kumar Tigga, S/o Shri Kashi Nath Tigga, Aged about 29 years, R/o C/o Rajendra Ekka, Raju Hotel, Chindrapara, P‘Ol Pathalgaon, District: Jashpur (CG) /,/ 15. Drl Chandra Shekhar Gendle. S/o Shri Tekram Gendle, Aged about 29 years, R/o Village^—— Goindra, via^— Patharia‘ District^- Bilaspur (CG) 16. Dr‘ Yogesh Subramanian, S/o Shri R. Subramanian. Aged about 30 years. R/o No. 5, K.T‘ Raju Street, Ragupathi Naicken Palayam‘ Moolapalayam, Post^~ Erode, PIN 638002 (TAMIL NADU)' 17. Dru Prerana AgarwaL D/o Shri D.K. AgarwaL Aged about 28 years‘ R/o c/o Bhadra Gupt Agarwal, Cloth Merchant, Chiror, District^— Mainpuri (UTTAR PRADESH)_ Dr. Sunita Lamba, W/o Dr. Ranjan Lamba, Aged about 27 years, R/o Near Railway Crossing, Gudha Mode, Jhunjhunu (RAJASTHAN)

¶12

19.^/ Dr. Anandi Lobo, D/o Prakash Lobo Aged about 28 years, : R/o 4—Prestige, 36^MoghulLane, Mahim, Mumbai (Urban), Mumbai 400016 (MAHARASHTRA) 20. Dr. Vibhuti D/o Shri Prakash Chand^Jain, Aged about 28 years. R/o C/40, Jr‘ HIG, Ayodhya^Nagar, Bhopa15462041 (MP) 2f Dr‘ Chiragkumar Rasiklal^Patel, S/o Shri Rasiklal^Patel, Aged about 29 years, R/o House no, 23, Hari^HomeSociety, D/H Taluka Panchayat,^MeturRoad, Modassa (GUJARAT) Dr, Akash Lalwani, S/o Late Dr. Gopal Lalwani, t Aged about 27 years, R/o Lalwani Clinic, Purani^Basti, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur (CG) 23. Dr. Dinanath Sharma, S/o Shri SD, Sharma Aged about 29 years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Ring^Road, Raipur (CG) Petitioners Vers us State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Health & Family^Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Directorate of Medical Education Through its Director, Raipur (CG)

¶13

¶14

3,^/ Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Through its Dean, Station Road, Raipur, District^— Raipur (CG) 4r(/’ Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 001 ' Directorate General of Health Services, Through its Director-General, M,E, Cell, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001 6/” Medical Council of India, Through its Chairman, Pocket^- 14, Sector^— 8, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077 Respondents

¶15

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶16

<3
\Q

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \

¶18

DIVISION BENCH

¶19

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE 85 MHON’BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN JJ.

¶20

WRIT PETITION [Cl No_. 586(2012

¶21

I g M

¶22

Petitioners Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and others

¶23

Respondents State of

¶24

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶25

Present:- Mr. PK. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate with Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the Union of India/respondents No. 4 8r, 5. Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate for the respondent No. 6.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Passed^on 10/07/2012)

¶28

The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sagre, J:-

¶29

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioners seek to challenge constitutional validity of Rule 11.1. and 11.5 of the Rules called^{“Chhattisgarh} MedicalpSnatakottar Pravesh Pariksha Niyam 2004 (hereinafter for brevity called “The Niyam 2004”) framed by the State by issuing a notification dated 1 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P~1).

¶30

Facts of the case are these:—

¶31

¶32

$3 \lw

¶33

With a View to rcgulate admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges of Chhattisgarh, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted a law (Adhiniyam) called “Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mahavidyalayon Ke Snatkottar Pathyakrmon Main Pravesh Adhiniyam, 2002 (No 28 of 2002 ) for short hereinafter called^“ Adhiniyarn”. 4. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam provides that the admission to postgraduate courses in the Medical Colleges of Chhattisgarh shall be regulated by Rules made by the State Government. Section 4 gives power to the State Government5 to make Rules in this behalf to carry out the purpose of this Adhiniyam and also to amend the Rules once made from time to time. Section 5 deals with savings clause and save the earlier Rules (Chhattisgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Pareeksha Niyam 2002) as if made under this Adhiniyam by deeming fiction.

¶34

In exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, the State has made the aforementioned Rules called^“The Niyam 2002. 6. Rule 11 and in particular Rule 11.1 and 11.5 which interalia deals with admission and with which we are concerned in this writ petition reads as under:-

¶35

“11.1 Depending on the choice made by the candidate at the time of counseling Candidates will be given admission immediately after selection of course and subject. Such selected candidates has to do two years rural service in the State after completion of his/her P.G. Course and for this he/she has to furnish a bond of Rs. 10 Lakhs for which candidate has to execute a security bond in form of bank guarantee of Rs. 3 Lakhs (Unreserved candidates)/Rs. 1.5 Lakhs

¶36

q/
<br>

¶37

(Reserved^{Category)withinsixmonthsof} date of admission in prescribed proforma.

¶38

11.5. The All India Quota selected candidate also has to do two years rural services in the State after completion of his/her P.G. Course and for this he/she has to furnish a bond or Rs. 10 Lakhs for two years rural service as applicable for the States Government quota rule number 11.1.”

¶39

The writ petitioners (23 in numbers) are all the candidates who appeared in the A11 India Post Graduation Entrance Examination of 2010 for MD/MS/Diplorna^8aMDS courses and were declared successful^{insecuringadmission} in the respective post graduate courses. (See—^{AnnexureP—4} to P-26 collectively). They were given admissions in State Medical Colleges at Chhattisgarh. Their main grievance in this writ petition is that since they are the candidates selected out of All India quota in the^{entranceexamination} conducted for securing admission in post graduate^courses in State Medical college, and hence the^respondents (State Authorities) can not insist upon them to ensure^compliance of the requirements of Rule 1 1.1 and 11.5 quoted^above for execution of bonds in favour of the State as a pre—condition for prosecuting their studies in the light of^{lawlaiddownby} the Supreme Court in the case of Anand S. Biji Vs. State of Kerala 85 Ors. reported in JT 2001 (10) SC^121wherein it is ruled by the Supreme Court that^{candidatessecuring} admission from the A11 India entrance stream can not be asked to execute the Bonds like the other students who come from other streams. They contend that though they are not liable to execute the bonds in favour of the respondents (State) yet,^{therespondentsinignoranceoflaw} laid down by the Supreme Court in Anand’s^casesupra is compelling them to ensure compliance of these two^Rules by furnishing the Bonds and hence^thewrit petitioners^have become aggrieved and filed the writ petition to challenge^its

¶40

validity and legality of the Rules 1 1.1 and 1 1.5 qua the writ petitioners^{or/ andinthealternativeforclaimingissuanceof} writ of mandamus against the respondents directing the respondents not to insist upon or/compel the writ petitioners for execution of the Bond as provided in Rule 11.1 and 5. 8. The stand of the respondents (State)^isthatinthe light of one circular issued by the Central Government (Annexure— R—l), the State claims that they^are entitled to insist upon the writ petitioners to^{executetheBond.} s

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record^{ofthecase,weareinclinedto} allow the writ petition and issue following writ of mandamus. 10. At the out set, we consider it to apposite to mention that the issue as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anand S. Biji supra. It is proper to reproduce the entire judgment^{oftheSupremeCourtinfrabecause} it is a short one and at the same time^{relevantforthedisposalofthis} writ petition.

¶42

“The problems faced in the matter of implementing the scheme framed by this Court for admission to postgraduate medical courses are raised in these^LAs. 2. The learned Solicitor General^askedus to make clear certain aspects for smooth implementation of the scheme of admission into medical collages andⁱⁿ particular,^those pertaining to the 15% all India quota. It is submitted that the states^{andcollegesshould} “State not insist upon satisfaction of the requirements” as a condition to grant admission to the allottees^{againstthe15%all}

¶43

~<br>(7

¶44

India quota. He elaborated^{thatthestatesare} imposing conditions on the candidates admitted to postgraduate courses in the colleges, for example, the Government of Gujarat requires the postgraduate^studentsto execute a bond of Rs. 75,000/-^{forrendering3} years^ruralservice in the state as prescribed by the state government. Similarly, Government of Maharashtra has imposed a condition that candidate would^havetoserve the Government of Maharashtra^fora period^of one year as medical officer in any of the PHC/RHC in the State prior^{toadmissionto} the postgraduate course. Thus the result is that different states have imposed different conditions. Candidate admitted^underthe all India quota under different state medical colleges are not uniformly placed.^Whilesome of the candidates have to fulfill those requirements, others are not required to do so. 3. In deed in this regard, a three judge bench of this. Court in Harish Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India & Ors. [JT 1999 (2)^SC313], has stated as follows:It is not disputed that the criteria of eligibility of allotment of^aseatto MBBS against the 15% all India Quota^{hasbeenfixedbytheCBSEin} consultation with the Medical Council of India under a modified scheme approved by this Court. Under that scheme, the states and colleges cannot insist upon “State satisfaction of the requirements” as a condition to grant admission to the allottees against the 15% all India quota. It is, therefore, not open to any state to fix any additional eligibility criteria in cases of candidates who fall under the 15% all India Quota. The eligibility criteria having been approved by this Court, it could^not be ignored by the dean, medical college, Solapur.” In view of this direction, no fresh directionⁱⁿ this regard is required. 4. He further submitted that since the criteria of eligibility for allotment of seat to MBBS against the 15% all India quota having been fixed by CBSE in consultation^withthe

¶45

9 \é

¶46

Medical Council of India under a modified scheme approved by this Court, those seats must be only in respect of the seats approved by the Medical Council of India. In other words, the seats in 15% all India Quota should include only those seats which have been approved by the Medical Council of India. This aspect is patent. On the face of it as we cannot conceive of any seats not approved by the Medical Council of India in any college. Therefore, allotment of seats cannot be in respect of a seat not approved by the Medical Council of India. Hence, no separate direction is needed in this regard.”

¶47

It is not in dispute that this judgment of the Supreme Court still holds the field as on day because the learned State Counsel was not able to point out any contrary decision of the Supreme Court on the issue and secondly no law was pointed out which would dilute the authority of Supreme Court rendered in Anand‘s Case supra. Not only this, even the Central Government vide its letter dated 15.3.2011 requested all the States to ensure the compliance of the order of the Supreme Court. The contents of the letter sent by the Central Government in this letter also need reference herein which read as under:-

¶48

“I am directed to enclose herewith letter No. U-12021/5/99-MEC dated 2712.2001 along with order of Supreme Court dated 22.04.93 in C.A. No. 1944 of 1993 (Anand S. Biji Vs. State of Kerala 8n Ors.) pertaing to additional eligibility conditions/bonds for All India Quota. The details are given in the above mentioned letter. You are requested to follow the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 22.04.93 strictly to avoid legal complications in the matter.” 12. In the light of aforesaid two facts which are indeed undisputed, we have no hesitation in issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents that the candidates

¶49

<0
\9

¶50

who are given admission out of all India entrance examination quotas can not be compelled to execute the Bond as provided in aforementioned two Rules i.e. Rule 11.1 and 11.5 ibid. Indeed, this is What has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Anand Biji’s case supra and the same will equally apply to the facts of the case in favour of the writ petitioners. As a matter of fact, it was the duty of the State to have ensured compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court While dealing with the writ petitioners so also the directives of the Central Government contained in the letter referred supra by pursuing their letter referred a, above which was not done.

¶51

We are of therefore of the view that enacting of Rule 11.1 and 11.5 is valid and constitutional but at the same time, we are also of the View that it can not be so used, implemented and enforced against those candidates who were given admission due to their passing examination out of all India quota entrance examination such as the writ petitioners^{hereinsofarasitrelatestoexecutionofbonds} are concerned. In other words, the Rules in question are constitutionally valid and legal but in the light of Supreme Court decision in Anan’s case, it would not apply to the cases of those candidates who have secured admission through all India entrance examination quotas in so far as it provides^forexecution of bonds. Need less to observe the Rules 11.1 and 11.5 would continue to apply against other candidates, in toto.

¶52

So far as submission of the learned counsel for the respondents (State) that in the light of one circular (Annexure—R-l) the State was justified in insisting for execution of bonds by the writ petitioners, this submission deserves to be rejected at the threshold because once the law is laid down by the Supreme Court on any issue

¶53

\éqf

¶54

between the parties then it becomes a law for the land and binds not only the parties to a case in which it was rendered but equally binds everyone in Whole country by virtue of mandate contained in Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover the circular of Government is not a law and hence it can never be pressed in service to avoid implementation of the decision of the Supreme Court. We therefore reject this submission of the learned counsel for the State.

¶55

In the light of foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part.^{Weaccordinglyholdand} declare that Rule 11.1 and ll. 5 of the Niyam 2002 are intravires to the provisions of the Constitution and are thus constitutionally valid. In other words, we hold and declare that Rule 11.1 and 11.5 of the Niyam 2002 are constitutionally valid. We also issue writ of mandamus against the respondents by directing them (respondents) not to insist/compel and call upon the writ petitioners to ensure compliance of Rule 11.1 and 11.5 of the said Rules in so far as it relates to execution of any bond is concerned, While prosecuting their studies in their respective colleges in State of Chhattisgarh. In other words, we hold and declare in favour of the writ petitioners that they (writ petitioners) are not liable to ensure compliance of the requirement of Rule 11.1 and 1115 of the Niyam 2002 in so far as it relates to execution of any bond as specified therein in favour of the respondents (State Authorities) while prosecuting their studies.

¶56

No cost. Sd/— Sd/— .^G. Minhajuddin Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge Judge

¶57

yogesh

Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. Vs Presidinf Offi. Cent. Govt. Ind. Cou

Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/S Suresh Brothers Vs Commisner of Income Tex

Newar Singh Vs State of C.G.

Narayan Singh Uike Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramji Vs Sumitra Bai and Ors.