The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a review petition challenging an order that conditionally granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a petitioner, upholding the state's policy regarding bond execution for sponsored medical PG courses.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Pet. No.66 of 2024 Decided on: 9th August, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Rajeev Sandal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh & Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Arsh Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent no.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
This Review petition has been filed by the review
petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this Court on
16.05.2024 in LPA no.93 of 2024.
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?
2
2. In the said judgment, this Court had interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the State was right in granting conditional NOC to the review petitioner and refusing to permit him to serve elsewhere in Himachal Pradesh, having regard to the terms of the bond executed by the review petitioner. This Court had also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others vs. Union of India and others1 , wherein the policy of the States, which provided for compulsory bond conditions for pursuit of Super Speciality courses by executants of such bonds for pursuit of post-graduate courses in Super Speciality courses was challenged and the said policy was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner contends that
in case of certain others, the State had not enforced the bond, that the applicant is willing for transfer of the said bond in order to enable him to work in the State of Himachal Pradesh at AIIMS Bilaspur and the State had, therefore, acted arbitrarily.
4. The order passed by the State Government, conditionally granting NOC specifically refers to the terms of the
1 (2019) 8 SCC 607
3
policy, mentions that the review petitioner had executed such a bond and before relieving the review petitioner, he shall deposit/pay
full bond money/amount in lieu of pursuit of the course as a sponsored candidate of the State. The State had thus declined to transfer the bond, as is being sought by the review petitioner or to exempt him from paying the amount of bond money, which the review petitioner had agreed to pay under the agreement executed with the State.
5. Since the action of the State in this regard appears to be in conformity with the policy and the said policy has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case, we see no reason to review the impugned order.
The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice
August 09, 2024 Mukesh
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any reason to review the order conditionally granting NOC to the petitioner regarding bond execution terms.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶12
Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others vs. Union of India and others (2019) 8 SCC 607 · Who else cites this
Dr. Rajeev Sandal
State of H.P.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
