Dr. Jasmine Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 29675 of 2013 (H)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **DR. JASMINE SANKARANARAYANAN, D/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, ASHIRWAD HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR.P.O, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** **3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673 008.** **4. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, ANSARI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI-110 029.** **R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE, R4 BY SRI. K.T. THOMAS, S.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.29675/2013-H:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DT. 24-8-2007 ISSUED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, PALAKKAD.** - **P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B2/1400/2013/MCC DTD. 26-6-13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P3. TRUE COPY OF ADMIT CARD FOR PD-CET, JANUARY 2014 ADMISSION SESSION.** - **P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18-11-13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No.29675 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6[th] day of December, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : “ i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to release the documents mentioned in Ext.P2 viz. 10[th] Certificate, MBBS Degree certificate CRRI certificate, Kerala Medical Council Registration Certificate to the petitioner forthwith; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4[th] respondent to admit the petitioner in DNB course notwithstanding the non production of the documents viz. 10th certificate, MBBS Degree certificate, CRRI certificate, Kerala Medical Council Registration Certificate by the petitioner; iii) Issue an appropriate writ declaring that the bond condition refusing the return of certificate to the petitioner on her failure to serve Health Department is void, illegal and unconstitutional. And iv) Grant such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 W.P.(C)No.29675/2013 2. The case of the petitioner is that she got admission to the Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynecology course under All India Post Graduate Medical Quota in the Government Medical College, Kozhikode on 1.7.2008 and at the time of obtaining admission, the certificates mentioned in Ext.P2 were surrendered before the concerned respondent. The petitioner satisfactorily completed the course and passed out. But admittedly, she could not serve the minimum period of service to be rendered in the Health Department. It is stated that the petitioner has now obtained admission to Diploma in National Board conducted by the fourth respondent. When the petitioner sought to have the certificates to be returned, it is refused to be acceded to, for want of satisfactory completion of the bond period. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-satisfaction of the commitment under the bond is not wilful, but because of other compelling circumstances. It is also stated that by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in _**Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Natu Ganguly ( 1986 (3) SCC**_ W.P.(C)No.29675/2013 3 _**156)**_ , no such bond could have been insisted and the petitioner is not liable to discharge the same, being an unconscionable restriction, thus seeking to have the documents released. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that the petitioner completed the course as early as in the year 2010 and that the bond period is three years. It is also pointed out that the admission was given to the petitioner under the particular category head, enabling the petitioner to complete the studies in the State quota and that substantial amount had to be incurred by the State from the public exchequer in this regard. This is the reason for incorporating the necessary condition in the Prospectus itself, which stands approved by the Government and it was with open eyes that the petitioner sought for and obtained admission to the course with the knowledge that the petitioner had to serve the Health Department for a minimum period of three years, once satisfactory completion of the course was effected. This is to make available the service of the petitioner to the general public, in consideration of the expenditure already made by the State Government to equip the petitioner as duly qualified. 4 W.P.(C)No.29675/2013 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the decision in _**Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Natu Ganguly ( 1986 (3) SCC 156)**_ is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It was a case where the employer obtained a bond from the employee, just before joining the service, agreeing to satisfy a liquidated sum, if the employee had to quit the service before the bond period. After referring to the various facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law and the precedents, the Apex Court held that, at the time of executing the bond, there was an unconscionable bargain as it was a 'do or die' affair for the employee and as such, the bond executed by the employee who was badly in need of the employment could not be regarded as a validly executed one, with proper 'consensus ad idem' at the time of executing the said bond. In the case of the petitioner, the incorporation of the bond is with a specific purpose as mentioned above and in consideration of the amount already spent by the State Government from the public exchequer for enabling the petitioner to be duly qualified. After availing the benefit, the petitioner is not supposed to take a 'U' turn and say that the petitioner is not bound to W.P.(C)No.29675/2013 5 serve the general public for the requisite period. That apart, the condition was very much incorporated in the Prospectus, as approved by the Government, and it was with open eyes that the petitioner obtained admission in the Government Quota agreeing to such terms. As such, this Court holds that the petitioner is bound to satisfy the terms of the bond. 6. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that the bond amount is Rs. 10 lakhs and during the course of study, the petitioner had obtained other benefits by way of stipend to an extent of Rs. 3,87,050/- and thus the total amount is Rs. 13,87,050/-. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to pursue further studies, for which return of the certificates is very much essential. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to satisfy the bond amount, in lieu of the service of three years to be rendered in the Health Department and the stipend received, for which some breathing time is sought for. W.P.(C)No.29675/2013 6 8. In the above circumstances, considering the requirement to have the certificates returned, there will be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to return all the documents mentioned in Ext.P2 forthwith, on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the said amount of Rs. 13,87,050/- ( Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty seven thousand and fifty only). The due amount shall be satisfied by the petitioner by way of cash, by effecting necessary deposit under the concerned head of account of the concerned respondent within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, it will be open for the respondents to encash the Bank Guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner so as to facilitate return of the documents. Writ petition is disposed of. **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** sv. **JUDGE** W.P.(C)No.29675/2013 7