Sunitha R. vs The Department of Health and Family Welfare

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to deliver all the original certificates of the petitioner withheld by them.

The petitioner having completed the M.B.B.S. course had appeared for the Post Graduation Entrance Test for admission to the Post Graduate Medical course and was accordingly allotted the seat for M.D. (Anatomy) in the fourth respondent-Institute. In that regard, a bond had been executed to serve the Government for a period of three years, after completion of the Post Graduate Course, failing which to pay on demand a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The petitioner has thereafter successfully completed the Post Graduate Medical course.

The educational documents/testimonials of the petitioner which has been deposited with the fourth respondent at the time of admission would be delivered back to the petitioner only on the respondents No. 1 and 2 issuing a ''No Objection Certificate''. The stand of the fourth respondent is to the effect that the documents cannot be delivered to the petitioner until the respondents No. 1 and 2 permit them to do so. The petitioner in such circumstance has approached this Court seeking for appropriate direction in that regard to deliver the documents.

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the very purpose with which a seat for Post Graduate Medical course has been allotted to the petitioner is to see that on completion of the Post Graduation course, the petitioner would serve the Government and in that regard, since a bond has already been executed by the petitioner, at this juncture, if the petitioner seeks for return of the documents submitted with the fourth respondent, they would not serve the Government, but would join other institution or other course which would be detrimental to not only the interest of respondents No. 1 and 2, but also to the public at large.

Though such contention has been urged by the learned Government Advocate, the issue for consideration is as to whether the said educational documents submitted by them to satisfy the eligibility criteria for taking up the Post Graduation course with the fourth respondent could be held back as a condition to secure the petitioner to serve the Government or is it only to satisfy the educational criteria. In that regard, detailed consideration need not be made herein for the reason that a similar question had arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P. Nos. 35537-35540/2014 disposed of on 13.08.2014. Insofar as the said aspect relating to the return of the documents in similar set of circumstance, this Court had considered the issue as follows:

"7. On the aspect relating to the return of the documents as sought for by the petitioners, it is pointed out that the submission of the relevant documents was made to establish the eligibility and to enable the petitioners to pursue the post graduation course and not as security. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that even the bonds at Annexures K to K3 does not refer to the deposit of the documents as security and the same being a condition therein so as to enable the 4th respondent to withhold the documents. In that circumstance, when the bond provides for the alternate relief of recovering the amount as provided therein, in the event of the petitioners not serving the Respondent No. 4, the withholding of the documents, in any event, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would no doubt contend that no request has been made with the Respondent No. 4 for return of documents and as such, the said prayer also would not arise for consideration at this juncture. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions from the counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the representations have been made.

Be that as it may, in a circumstance where the respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to assert their rights herein to seek the petitioners to serve the Respondent No. 4 by all means, the said question as to whether there should be a direction to return the documents would certainly arise for consideration in these petitions. On this aspect of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 12/12/2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, where a similar issue has been considered and the right of the petitioners therein to receive back the documents, was adverted to and a direction had been issued. Apart from being fortified by the said order, I am also of the opinion that though the respondent No. 4 may enforce the bond in respect of the undertaking that has been granted thereunder, in an appropriate proceedings and in the manner known to law wherein all aspects would be considered, certainly the documents which were submitted by the petitioners as a requirement to indicate the eligibility of the petitioners to undergo the post graduation course, cannot be withheld by the Respondent No. 4 after the course has been completed by them."

On such consideration, this Court had issued the directions as contained in Para-9 of the order therein which reads as hereunder:

"9. Therefore to the said extent, the Respondent No. 4 is directed to return the original documents/certificates/testimonials submitted by the petitioners to the Respondent No. 4, while joining the post graduation course. The return of the documents shall be made within one week from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the Respondent No. 4. On all other aspects, all contentions of the parties are left open."

In that view, in the instant case also, the fact that a bond has been executed in favour of the Government is not in dispute. For failing to serve the Government after the completion of the course, the respondents No. 1 and 2 no doubt would be entitled to enforce the bond for recovery of the said amount against the petitioner subject to the defense that would be open to the petitioner.

Therefore, when such right is still available to the respondents No. 1 and 2, mere execution of the bond to serve the Government cannot be a circumstance where the documents can also be withheld by the respondents. Therefore, a direction is issued to the second respondent to issue a ''No Objection Certificate'' addressed to the fourth respondent permitting them to deliver the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission of the petitioner. On such no objection communication being addressed by the second respondent to the fourth respondent institution, the fourth respondent institution shall deliver back the documents submitted by the petitioner to the petitioner. The no objection communication to be addressed by the second respondent shall be made within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent shall deliver back the documents to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of communication from the second respondent. Even if such communication is not received from the second respondent, the fourth respondent shall return the documents after the expiry of one week from the date on which a copy of this order is made available.

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.