Allowed

Dr. Sangeetha. G. B. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2023WP/15665/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the validity of a five-year compulsory service bond for an MBBS graduate. The court declared the bond illegal and void, holding the ESI Corporation lacked legal authority to enforce it, and directed the return of the bank guarantee provided by the student.

What did the court decide?

Declared the five-year service bond illegal and void; directed respondents to return the bank guarantee.

Dr. Sangeetha. G. B. Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 15665 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. SANGEETHA. G. B. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD, R/O. GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, PALYAKERE POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 124.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHODA KRISHNAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 105, 1^ST FLOOR, SECRETARIATE BUILDING, VIKASA SOUDHA, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶15

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MEDICAL DIVISION-IV, HQRS. OFFICE, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, C.I.G. MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶18

THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PGIMSR, BANGALORE RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN.

¶19

KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL 16/6, MILLERS ROAD, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶20

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶21

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (ERSTWHILE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA), POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARKA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SMT. GEETHADEVI M. PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 SMT. RATNA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. GIRISH KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE AND HOLD THAT THE R3 AND R4 HAD NOT LEGAL BASIS TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER TO COMPULSORY SERVE THE R3 AND R4 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR MBBS DEGREE AT THE R4-COLLEGE AND ETC.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard learned Counsel Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, for the petitioner; learned AGA-Smt.Pramodini Kishan, for respondent No.1; learned Counsel Sri.N.K.Ramesh, for respondent No.2; learned Counsel Smt.Geethadevi M Papanna, for respondent Nos.3 and 4; learned Counsel Smt.Rathna Shivayogi Math, for respondent No.5; learned Counsel Sri.Girish Kumar R, for respondent No.6 and learned Counsel Sri.N.Khetty, for respondent No.7. Learned Counsel for the respondents are permitted two weeks time to file their respective Vakalath/Memo of Appearance.

¶30

Petitioner took up Admission for MBBS Course in respondent No.4–The Employees State Insurance Corporation Medical College & PGIMSR, Bangalore under State quota for the academic year 2012-2013, which was run by the respondent No.3–Employees State Insurance Corporation Medical Division–IV.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶33

The respondent No.1–State of Karnataka conducted Common Entrance Test-2012 through respondent No.2–Karnataka Examination Authority for MBBS, Dental Course for the State Government Quota. The petitioner secured rank and appeared for counseling. The respondent No.1 introduced Online Counseling for the first time from 2012-13 academic year and the candidates were required to opt for their choices and were allotted online seats in the Colleges of their choice, based on their ranking and seat availability displayed on the respondent No.2 website.

¶34

Petitioner decided to opt respondent No.4–College and being satisfied selected the college. She was issued the allotment letter by the respondent No.2. Pursuant to the admission in respondent No.4–College petitioner was shocked to see that respondent No.4–College demanded the petitioner to execute bond for five years in favour of the ESI Corporation undertaking that they would serve for five years in the Corporation Hospital anywhere in India,

¶35

¶36

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶37

failing which they would have to pay a penalty of Rs.7.5 lakhs with 15% interest for acquiring basic undergraduate Course.

¶38

In fact, the Petitioner as well as her parents stated that they have raised objections and questioned the respondent No.4–College of obtaining bonds highhandedly and coercively for five years service anywhere in India, which was not informed prior to choosing of the college under the State quota, but the respondent No.4–College refused to respond to the same.

¶39

The petitioner who had opted the State Government quota had already executed the bond for one year compulsory rural service in favour of respondent No.1–State as stipulated in the KEA Manual as required under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Education Institutions Rules, 2006 vide notification dated 17.07.2012, which mandates that the Medical candidates who have completed MBBS shall perform compulsory

¶40

¶41

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶42

service in any Primary Health Center or Unit situated in Rural Areas in the State of Karnataka, failing which the candidate is liable to pay penalty of Rs.10 lakhs to Government.

¶43

The petitioner and her parents were helpless and left with no other alternative executed the bond to the respondent No.4–College. It is the contention of the petitioner that she was compelled and forced to execute the bond in favour of the respondent No.4–College undertaking to serve for five years in the ESI Corporation Hospital anywhere in India on completion of the course.

¶44

Petitioner completed the course in the year 2018 and thereafter respondent No.4-College declined to issue the credentials/testimonials/documents citing that the petitioner had to do five year compulsory service, failing which she will have to pay Rs.7.5 lakhs with interest. Due to the denial of the credentials to the petitioner, she could not register with the respondent No.5-Karnataka Medical

¶45

¶46

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶47

Council, which was mandatory for her to pursue further academic career and future plans.

¶48

In this background the petitioner approached City Civil Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3403/2018 seeking for a declaration that the bond executed to respondent No.4–College is non est and unenforceable and restraining the respondent No.4–College from attempting to enforce the bond.

¶49

It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid case the trial Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to release the documents by obtaining Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs. In pursuance to the same the documents were returned to the petitioner and petitioner furnished the Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs, which is now in the custody of respondent No.4–College.

¶50

In view of the above, the petitioner has approached this by filing the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶51

¶52

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶53

“i. To declare and hold that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had no legal basis to insist upon the petitioner to compulsorily serve the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for a period of five years upon completion of her MBBS degree in the respondent No.4 College.

¶54

ii. To declare and hold that the Bond dated 27.07.2012 and produced as Annexure B, executed by the Petitioner in favour of the 3^rd Respondent as illegal, without authority of law and unenforceable in law or non est in the eye of law.

¶55

iii. Direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 to return the bank guarantee, in No.201819/3, dated 24.08.2018, produced as Annexure-D and furnished by the Petitioner to Respondent 4.

¶56

iv. Direct the Respondent No 4-college to refund the sum of Rs.35,000/- to the Petitioner collected as deposit at the time of the joining the course.”

¶57

¶58

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶59

It is vehement of the learned counsel for

¶60

petitioner that respondent Nos.3 and 4 do not have any valid right powers to obtain the bond for five years in favour of the Corporation undertaking that they would serve for five years in the Corporation hospital anywhere in India, failing which they will pay a penalty of Rs.7.5 lakhs with 15% interest, which is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be held as void and non-est.

¶61

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the respondent No.4–College at the time of calling for applications or at the time of commencement of the selection process, or during the online counseling process or making the announcement of selection of the respondent No.4–College by the petitioner or the issuance of the allotment order, the respondent No.2 had not displayed in the brochure or their website, any conditions, notification or order regarding the requirement of execution of a bond to serve the respondent No.4–College for five years and the subsequent action of the respondent

¶62

10 -

¶63

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶64

Nos.3 and 4 in obtaining bonds at the time of admission

¶65

was untenable, arbitrary and without authority of law.

¶66

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that like the petitioner similarly situated students have approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.2936529368/2018, W.P. No.30406/2018 and connected matters, which came to be allowed and respondents were directed to relieve the petitioners therein of all liabilities in lieu of bonds. The petitioner in the present writ petition is also similarly placed as that of the above cases.

¶67

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court having examined all the pros and cons and hearing all the learned counsel for parties, agreed with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners therein and held that the respondent–ESI Corporation and its Colleges do not have any authority of law to enforce against the petitioners the five year compulsory service bond for any period and directed to relieve the petitioners therein from the obligations of compulsory service unconditionally and

¶68

11 -

¶69

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶70

also held that no liability or the like shall be fastened on the petitioners or their parents on account of the service bonds in question.

¶71

The present writ petition is squarely covered by the said decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is identical and similar aspect as narrated in the present writ petition. Hence, in view of the same it would not take much time to this Court to decide the present writ petition, as the matter is covered with the aforesaid judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶72

In view of the above discussions and the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶73

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(a) The writ petition is allowed;

¶76

(b) A writ of certiorari is issued declaring that

¶77

the respondent Nos.3 and 4 do not have

¶78

12 -

¶79

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶80

any legal basis to insist upon the petitioner herein to compulsorily serve the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for a period of five years upon completion of her MBBS degree in the respondent No.4–College.;

¶81

(c) A writ of certiorari is issued declaring that the bond dated 27.07.2012 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.3 as illegal, without any authority, unenforceable and non est in the eye of law.;

¶82

(d) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to return the Bank Guarantee dated 24.08.2018 executed by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs, pursuant to the orders passed by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.3403/2018.;

¶83

(e) Further, with regard to Prayer No.(iv) in the writ petition to ‘direct the respondent No.4College to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- to

¶84

13 -

¶85

WP No. 15665 of 2022

¶86

the petitioner collected as deposit at the time of joining the course’, the petitioner is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.4–College in accordance to law.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

Dr. Sangeetha. G. B. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sangeetha. G. B. v. State of Karnataka

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

The S M English High School Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Arshiya Farheen Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh S Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chayadevi(Geetha) Vs Sri R Shivanna

Srinivaasan N S Vs the Union of India

Smt Chithra Vs Mr Chandrashekaraiah M.C.