Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15565 of 2016 Petitioner :- Dr. Anil Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Singh Yadav,Surendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Suchit Tondon
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.3 and 4. Notices had been accepted on behalf of respondent no.1 and Sri Suchit Tandon, Advocate, has put in appearance, however, no one is present today on behalf of the respondent no.1.
Notices were issued to the respondent no.2 and according to the report of Superintendent of Post Offices, the notice already stands served on the said respondent by registered speed post on 19th May, 2016. It is, therefore, evident that all the respondents have been served but no counter has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents.
The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the condition imposed by the respondent no.2 on the admission of the petitioner in the Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur to the effect that the petitioner under an executed bond was liable to serve in the State Medical Services of Maharashtra for the period of one year and, consequently, the petitioner having failed to abide by the said bond executed by him, a recovery of Rs.8,50,000/- is sought to be made from the petitioner, which has been sent for execution through the Tehsildar, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA).
The writ petition was entertained and the following interim order was passed on 7th April, 2016 :
"Petitioner was successful in All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in the year 2005 and was admitted in Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur under 15% All India Quota.
The instant petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- sent by the Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur to the Collector District Gautam Budh Nagar (Noida) for an alleged violation of the Bond Rules inasmuch as the petitioner after successfully completing the course did not serve for one year in Maharashtra. It is submitted that the petitioner was a bonded candidate as per Government of Maharashtra Rules inasmuch as he was selected in the 15% of All India Quota and in view of notification issued by Directorate General of Health Services Medical Counseling Committee any additional State condition pertaining to Bond/Rural Service shall not be applicable to All India Quota candidates.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harsh Pratap Sisodia Vs. Union of India and others, JT 1999 (2) SC 313 and Anand Biji Vs. State of Kerala, 2001, Law Suit (S.C.) 962, wherein it has been held that criteria of eligibility for allotment of seat in MBBS against 15% of all India Quota having been fixed with CBSE in consultation with the Medical Council of India under a modified scheme approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under that scheme, the states and colleges cannot insist upon satisfaction of state requirements as a condition and thus recovery proceedings being violation of the norms for not honouring the bond is illegal.
Prima facie, their appears to be force in the submission and issue requires consideration.
Sri Suchit Tandon who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents no.3 & 4 may file counter affidavit within six weeks.
Issue notice to respondent no.2 who may also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after service of notice on the respondent no.2.
Considering the facts and circumstances, until further order, recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned citation dated 11.1.2016 (annexure-4 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed."
The issue is no longer res integra, inasmuch as, the Apex Court in the case of Anand Biji Vs. State of Kerala 2001 (10) JT 121 has categorically ruled that imposition of such condition including that by the Government of Maharashtra is contrary to the three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harsh Pratap Sisodia Vs. Union of India and others 1999 (2) JT 313.
It is thus settled that the imposition of such a condition in respect of a seat under the 15% All India Quota is not stipulated under law and is unsustainable. Consequently, the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner on the said ground of a condition of not fulfilling the terms of the bond, therefore, cannot stand the scrutiny of law and the writ petition accordingly deserves to be allowed.
The writ petition is allowed. The recovery citation dated 11th January, 2016 issued by the Tehsildar Dadari, Gautam Budh Nagar in pursuance of the order of the Collector dated 17.12.2015 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall not be compelled to make any deposit in terms of the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.2.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 KA