HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25665 OF 2008 DATED 15th OCTOBER, 2014 Between Dr. Hitesh Mishra …..Petitioner And Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Vijayawada, AP, rep. by its Registrar and ors.
….Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25665 of 2008 ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
The petitioner joined M.B.B.S. course at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and completed the said course with 55% marks. In order to pursue Master’s Degree in Pharmacology, he joined the second respondent-College as a Post Graduate-cum-Tutor under Management quota in the year 2004. At the time of joining the said course, the second respondent insisted him to deposit all original certificates till the completion of the course. After completion of the said course in August, 2007, the management of the second respondent offered him a job as Assistant Professor of Pharmacology in its college and reluctantly he accepted the same. The second respondent issued orders appointing the petitioner as such on 09.08.2007. The petitioner further states that during the period from May, 2004 to August, 2007, the second respondent management did not pay a single paise to him, but he was made to work as Tutor for 3 years and 3 months. The petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent to endorse the same so as to submit to the first respondent for obtaining M.D. decree certificate, but the Dean of the second respondent refused to sign the same and he was asked to continue in service. He submitted his resignation to the post of Assistant Professor in the second respondent college on 15.11.2007, but the Dean refused to receive the same and the Management appears to have returned the same. He left the second respondent college and joined College of Medical Science, at Nepal. Challenging the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not returning the original certificates, the present Writ Petition was filed.
This Court by order dated 08.04.2009 directed the respondents to return original certificates subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the first respondent. Pursuant to the said order, the original certificates were returned to the petitioner and the petitioner furnished the personal bond as directed by this Court.
A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.36, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (F2) Department, dated 28.01.2004, the management of a private unaided Medical College is entitled to fill up 50% of sanctioned intake of seats as its quota and the college is also empowered to fix its own fee structure in respect of the management seats taking into consideration the recurring and non-recurring expenditure. Accordingly they fixed the fee at Rs.3,00,000/-per seat per year in the third respondent college. Though under the Management quota the college is entitled to collect the fee fixed by it, the college instead of collecting the same had been collecting only the fee as fixed by the Government for the seats to be filled up by the Convener in some cases, where the student is willing to give an undertaking that he/she on completion of the course would work in the same department of the college for a minimum period of three years on applicable pay scale as fixed by University Grants Commission. This was to ensure that there is no dearth of the teachers in the faculty to teach the undergraduate students. During the academic year 2004-05, the petitioner approached the third respondent college seeking admission into the MD Pharmacology course, however, the petitioner did not appear for the entrance examination conducted by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner could only be admitted as against the seat meant under the management quota and it was informed that he is not entitled for stipend and he would be paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and that he has to execute a bond undertaking to work as Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacology for a period of five years as per existing salary. The petitioner completed the course and he was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the department of Pharmacology on a consolidated pay of Rs.35,000/- per month. He again executed a bond undertaking to work for a period of five years or else pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the management. The petitioner joined the respondent college on 09.08.2007 as Assistant Professor on full time basis in the Department of Pharmacology for a consolidated pay of Rs.35,000/- per month by executing an undertaking on 27.11.2003, as per which, he has to work as such for a minimum period of five years from 09.08.2007 to 08.08.2012. In case of discontinuance, he has to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the management.
From a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is not clear as to the ground on which the second respondent has withheld the original certificates. There is no whisper in the counter affidavit with regard to the allegation of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 withheld the original certificates deposited by him. If the petitioner was found not working as per the undertaking executed by him in favour of the second respondent, the second respondent should have taken necessary legal steps in that regard; however, it cannot withheld the original certificates even after completion of the course. In the absence of any averment in the counter affidavit justifying any such action, it cannot be held that the action of respondents 2 and 3 in withholding the original certificates of the petitioner even after completion of the course is valid. However in view of the interim direction of this Court, the original certificates were returned to the petitioner subject to execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
. Having regard to the view taken by this Court as above with regard to returning of original certificates, the personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the petitioner cannot be enforced and the same be returned to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 2014.
Msnro