State-quota MBBS graduates challenged compulsory two-year rural service and bond-payment conditions. The Court upheld Rule 11 of the medical entrance rules, rejected legislative-competence and constitutional objections, and dismissed all petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 931 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 964 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
2
---- Respondent
WPC No. 967 of 2018
3
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 969 of 2018
4
5
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 970 of 2018
6
---- Petitioner
Versus
7
Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WPC No. 971 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
8
Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WPC No. 974 of 2018
9
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 976 of 2018
10
11
R/o Village Dawadand, Tahsil Khadgwan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
12
R/o Village Tilaidand, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
13
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
14
---- Respondent
WPC No. 994 of 2017
15
R/o. Village Penderwani, Post Kanwal, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
16
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 995 of 2017
17
R/o 21-22, Gole Market, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh
18
Chhattisgarh
19
Years R/o Saraipali Road, Sarsiva, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
20
21
Balrampur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1001 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1058 of 2018
22
Village Birandabari Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1107 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
23
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1108 of 2018
24
Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.,
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1109 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
25
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1127 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
26
Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1186 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 1310 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
27
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1318 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
28
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1321 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1495 of 2018
29
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1547 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
30
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1555 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1583 of 2018
31
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1588 of 2018
Both are R/o Quarter No. B/95, Vasant Vihar Colony, S.E.C.L. (South Eastern Coal Fields Limited), Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
32
Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110002
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1593 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
33
WPC No. 1612 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1624 of 2017
34
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1625 of 2017
35
R/o Ganga Nagar, Sector- 2, Mangla Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1627 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
36
Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1737 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
37
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1959 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 1964 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
38
---- Respondent
WPC No. 2421 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
39
---- Respondent
WPC No. 2559 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 2774 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
40
---- Respondent
WPC No. 2915 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
41
WPC No. 2924 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 2937 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
42
---- Respondent
WPC No. 3095 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
43
---- Respondent
WPC No. 3096 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
44
WPC No. 3115 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 3411 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
45
New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Respective Petitioners Mrs. Meena Shastri, Mr. Shreyanka Nandy,Mr. Kapil Maini, Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha and Ms. Shriya Mishra Advocates For Respective Respondents Mr. Prafull Bharat, Additional Advocate General, Mr. NK Vyas, Mr. R.S. Marhas, Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocates
Order On Board
Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice
6/8/2018
46
Medical, Dental, Physiotherapy Graduation Entrance Examination Rules, 2011 (in short “the Rules, 2011”) as well as Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental, Physiotherapy Graduation Entrance Examination Rules, 2012 (for short “the Rules, 2012”).
“11. Bond for the Candidate taking admission in MBBS Course to serve under State Government -(1) It shall be mandatory for the student taking admission in MBBS Course that he/she has to serve as medical officer in Government Health Centre or in the Institution for a period of 2 years in rural areas as notified by Government, on successful completion of graduation course. This shall be abide mandatory for other courses.
e. Bond to serve under the Government:- At the time of admission the candidate has to submit a bond in prescribed proforma that he/she is agree with the provisions of Rule 11(1) and if he/she opts for a option not to work under government then apart from the bond amount as mentioned in Rule 11(3) he/she will deposit the entire amount of any stipend/scholarship having paid to him/her during the period of his/her study by the State Government. Only after the deposition of entire payable amount by him/her, the candidate
47
shall be issued with No-objection Certificate as prescribed.
(3) Amount of Bond- The amount of Bond for the Candidate of unreserved category is of Rs.5,00,000/- and for the students of reserved category and the bond amount is Rs.3,00,000/- has to be paid.
(7) After fulfilling the service term as per rule 11 (1) or after depositing the entire payable amount as per rule 11(3) as the case may be, (depending on the option taken by candidate), the commissioner shall issue No-objection Certificate to the candidate that provisions of rule 11(1).
xxx xxx xxx
(9) Penalty for non-compliance of Rule 11(1):- It any candidate opts to serve under the government and found guilty of non-compliance of Rule 11(1) then apart from the entire amount of Bond as mentioned in Rule 11(3), the recovery of entire amount of any scholar ship paid to him/her during the period of the course of his/her study by State Government or the recovery of entire amount of pay paid to him/her shall be made as dues of land-Revenue from the candidate. The No Objection Certificate as mentioned in Rule 11(7) shall not be given to such candidate unless the entire payable amount has been recovered.”
“ 11- jkT; 'kklu ds v/khu lsok djus gsrq ,e-ch-ch-,likB~;Øe esa izos'k ysus okys vH;FkhZ gsrq ca/ki= ¼ckW.M½ & ¼1½ ,e-ch-ch-,l ikB~;Øe esa izos'k ysus okys Nk= ds fy,
48
vfuok;Z gksxk fd og Lukrd ikB~;Øe lQyrkiwoZd iw.kZ djus ds ckn] 'kklu }kjk vf/klwfpr fd, x, xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa nks o”kksZa dh dkykof/k rd fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds :i esa 'kkldh; LokLF; dsUnz vFkok laLFkk esa dk;Z djsxk A vU; ikB~;Øeksa gsrq ;g vfuok;Zrk ugha gksxh A
¼2½ 'kklu ds v/khu dk;Z djus ds fy, ca/ki= ¼ckW.M½%& izos'k ds le; vH;FkhZ dks fu/kkZfjr izi= esa ;g ca/ki= izLrqr djuk gksxk] fd os fu;e 11 ¼1½ ds izko/kkuksa ls lger gS vkSj ;fn os 'kklu ds v/khu dk;Z u djus dk fodYi dk p;u djrs gSa] rks os fu;e 11 ¼3½ esa ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr ca/ki= jkf'k ds vykok jkT; 'kklu }kjk mlds v/;;u dh vof/k ds nkSjku mls Hkqxrku fd;s x, fdlh Hkh Nk=ofRr@f'k”;ofŸk dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k dks tek djsaxs A mlds }kjk lEiw.kZ ns; jkf'k ds tek gksus ds ckn gh vH;FkhZ dks ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr vukifRr izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tk,xk A
¼3½ ca/ki= ¼ckW.M½ dh jkf'k %& vukjf{kr Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ ds fy, ca/ki= ¼ck.M½ dh jkf'k :i;s 5]00]000@& ,oa vkjf{kr Js.kh ds Nk= ds fy, ca/ki= ¼ck.M½ dh jkf'k :i;s 3]00]000@& gksxh A
xxx xxx xxx
¼7½ fu;e 11 ¼1½ ds vuqlkj lsok vof/k 'krZ iwjh djus ds ckn vFkok fu;e 11 ¼3½ ds vuqlkj leLr ns; jkf'k tek
49
dj fn, tkus ds ckn] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks ¼vH;FkhZ }kjk fy, x, fodYi ij fuHkZj½] vk;qDr vH;FkhZ dks fu;e 11 ¼1½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vukifRr izek.k i= tkjh djsxk A
xxx xxx xxx
¼10½ fu;e 11 ¼1½ dk vuqikyu ugha djus ds fy, n.M & ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ 'kklu ds v/khu lsok djus dk p;u djrk gS vkSj fu;e 11 ¼1½ ds vuqikyu u djus dk nks”kh ik;k tkrk gS] rks fu;e 11 ¼3½ esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr ckW.M dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k ds vykok jkT; 'kklu }kjk mlds v?;;u dh vof/k ds nkSjku mls Hkqxrku dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh Nk=o`fRr dh laiw.kZ jkf'k vFkok mls Hkqxrku fd, x, osru dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k dh olwyh vH;FkhZ ls Hkw&jktLo ds cdk;k ds :i esa dh tk,xh A ,sls vH;FkhZ dks fu;e 11 ¼7½ esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vukifRr izek.k i= rc rd iznku ugha fd;k tk,xk] tc rd fd lEiw.kZ ns; jkf'k dh olwyh ugha gks tkrh A “
50
Course, they want to opt out of the obligation to pay bond amount if they decide to opt out to work under the State, specially in the Rural areas, for a period of 2 years. If the petitioners want to shake off the obligation of serving the masses in the rural areas of the State, they have been obligated to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in terms of the bond executed by them for unreserved category candidates and Rs.3 lakhs for reserved category candidates. Most of these petitioners have given one reason or the other as to why they are not in a position to serve the rural Health Centres and therefore, they want to be absolved of their liability, which was saddled upon them at the time of admission in the MBBS Course.
51
relation to the guidelines for admission in MBBS Course is a composite Rule and since the entire Rules, as such, are not being challenged on the ground of legislative competence, only a part of the rule cannot become vulnerable on such a ground.
52
they had initially executed at the time of admission without raising any objection in relation to such clause. It is only after completion of the course and having taken advantage of the admission, such arguments are being made. They cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument i.e. a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain an advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid and then turn around and say it is void for purpose of securing some other advantage.
53
Emphasis supplied
54
others , reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 121.
55
State of Maharashtra and it is a matter of common knowledge that patients are drawn from within as well as outside the State. Poverty in India does not know geographical boundaries. We do not find any infirmity in the policy decision of the State Government that students who complete their medical degrees from government and municipal run medical colleges must perform public service for a stipulated period in recognition of the fact that the public exchequer bears a large burden of the expenditure incurred on their medical education. Such a requirement is based on a valid rationale and the classification meets the requirements of a reasonable classification for the purposes of Article 14 of the Constitution. “
56
to such of those persons, who are economically affluent. Not only the State is incurring expenditures in imparting education, but is also making payment to them in one form or the other. That apart, the Bank Guarantee is required to be furnished in phases and not in one go. Rs.3,00,000/- per annum is not a huge amount, which a specialist cannot afford to arrange for and that too for the purpose of Bank Guarantee. Yes, Bank Guarantee is furnished against some tangible security, but then a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is also not such that no doctor can afford. In our considered view, it does not cast any unnecessary burden upon the students belonging to economically backward families. In any case, none has approached the authorities, expressing such concern. Nexus with the object sought to be achieved is very much evident and explained. There is co-relation between the imposition of condition and admission to a degree course. For after all, State is incurring huge expenditure and as already observed the endeavour is to stop braindrain and enable the specialists to serve the residents of the State to provide benefits to the residents of the State. “
57
case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others Vs. State of W.B. and another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 37 had this say in paragraph 16 :
58
lieu thereof they have imposed notional amount as a bond condition, in case a person wants to opt out or breach the same, the same cannot be struck down on the ground of being violative of Article 14 or Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The paramount objective behind Rule 11 is to provide medical service to the people in the villages and Government Primary Heath Centres situated in the Rural Areas by utilising the services of such MBBS Doctors. To ensure its enforcement, execution of bond has been incorporated as a condition to admission. The effort of the State was to only enforce the object and not to create any impediment in the choice of career or advantages after completion of the course of MBBS.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Chief Justice Judge
Shyna
3 issues framed by the court
Did the State lack legislative competence to impose rural-service bonds on State-quota MBBS students under Rule 11?
Did the two-year rural-service requirement and alternative bond payment violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g)?
Could students challenge the bond conditions after accepting admission under the Rules and completing their MBBS course?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Amit Bhishamlal Vallabhani and others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and othersRelied on¶850
(WPC No.586 of 2012, decided on 10.7.2012)
Anand S. Biji Vs. State of Kerala and othersReferred¶853
JT 2001 (10) SC 121. · Who else cites this
Dr. Vinod Shankarlal Sharma and 61 others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶856
(WPL No.1862 of 2012 and another connected petition, decided on 7.11.2012)
Dr. Ramesh Kaundal Vs. State of H.P. and othersRelied on¶860
CWP Nos.831/2017, CWP No.1251/2017, CWP No.1259/2017 and CWP No.1381/2017
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others Vs. State of W.B. and anotherRelied on¶867
(1996) 4 SCC 37 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Ku. Pratibha Sinha
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department
Director, Medical Education
Registrar, Ayush And Health Sciences University Of Chhattisgarh
Dean, Pt. J. N. M. Medical Collage, Raipur
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
