Dr. V. Shiney John and Others vs The Director of Medical Education and Others

T. Raja, J.—All these writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of Writ of

Mandamus, directing the respondents, namely, the Director of Medical Education, Chennai and the Deans of Madras, Coimbatore, Stanley,

Madurai and Tirunelveli Medical Colleges respectively to return all the original certificates of the petitioners as per the individual representations

dated 26.6.2013, since they had completed the course. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners, having joined the

Post Graduate course in the respective disciplines viz., Micro-biology, General Medicine & Bio-chemistry during the academic year 2011-2012 as

non-service candidates in the respective medical colleges, had completed their course during April, 2013. After the results were published, they

also came out successful. Since they had passed the course, they are eligible to go for higher studies. Therefore, they submitted representations

dated 26.6.2013 before the Deans of the respective colleges to return all their original certificates viz., M.B.B.S. Certificates, community

certificates, mark sheets, etc., which were submitted at the time of P.G. admission, but the respondents refused to return the original certificates. It

was also stated that when there is no condition in the prospectus for the purpose of retaining the original certificates of the petitioners even for

enforcing the bond conditions, the respondents cannot retain the same. The learned counsel also stated that when similar writ petitions were filed,

this Court, by order dated 20.11.2008, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 12885 to 12887 of 2008 etc., held as follows:--

...In the absence of the petitioners not violating any of the conditions of bond and in the absence of the respondents having any positive right to

withhold those documents, it is rather unfortunate that the said authorities are trying to retain lien over such documents. By this, they are not

allowing the petitioners to have any avenue to serve in any organization, which is not the intention for imparting studies to them with considerable

amounts involving public funds.

Notice in all these writ petitions were served on the respective respondents. In spite of the same, there has been no reply forthcoming from the

side of the respondents. Since the petitioners are also having offers to serve in various places, these writ petitions cannot be kept pending for years

together. The argument based on a Government Order permitting the retention of such certificates as a reason is neither authorised under law nor

made as a condition precedent to enforce such conditions.

Under such circumstances, all the writ petitions will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to return the certificates/documents sought for

by the petitioners individually by the respective Deans of the various Medical Colleges, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. If the Deans of the respective Medical Colleges come across any violation of the conditions of bond executed by each of the

petitioners, it is open to him to enforce the terms of the bond in the manner known to law. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

As against the said order, when W.A. No. 1444 of 2008 was filed, the Hon''ble Division Bench, by order dated 11.11.2011, while dismissing

the writ appeal, again held as follows:--

According to the respondent, there is no condition prescribed in the bond providing for lien over the certificates; the certificates are her

properties, which cannot be withheld by the appellants, except with her consent and that there is no condition stipulated in the bond or in the

prospectus that certificates would be withheld as a condition precedent for executing other clauses of the bond.

The learned single Judge, after taking into account the fact that the respondent has not violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the bond as

well as in the prospectus, directed the appellants herein to return the certificates/documents sought for by the respondent herein. The learned Judge

has also held that if the terms and conditions stipulated in the bond are violated by the respondent, then, it is for the appellants to enforce the terms

of the bond in a manner known to law. From a perusal of the materials available on record, we also find that the respondent has not violated any of

the conditions stipulated in the bond or in the prospectus. Therefore, we hold that the appellants have no right to withhold the

certificates/documents of the respondent, unless and until the terms and conditions of the bond are violated by the respondent. Consequently, we

hold that the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be interfered with in any manner and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

In the light of the settled position, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for allowing the present writ petitions.

In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly stated that since the issue raised in the present writ petitions, for return of the original

certificates/documents of the petitioners is concerned, having been covered, the same order may be passed. The said submission is recorded.

However, in regard to the bond, both parties are directed to abide by the conditions mentioned in the prospectus. Since the issue raised in the

present writ petitions is covered by the orders of this Court as mentioned above, following the same, these writ petitions are allowed and the

respondents are directed to return the certificates/documents sought for by the petitioners individually within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. If the Dean of the respective Medical College notices any violation of the conditions of bond executed by each of

the petitioners, it is open to him to enforce the terms of the bond in the manner known to law. However, there is no order as to costs.