High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/1854/2023dismissed

Amit Kumar v. Director Pgimer And Others

2025-09-04Justice (To Be Nominated),Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor16 pages

$$%%#!

(##! )! !! #% + #! #

-, "# . #%'

#!'

.,#/, '

- #!'

# !

2#3 3#!

(4#%'

#!'

55555

#$$#% 0 * % #7# !

/7!

$# %# - 7% .7'

4,01'

89 :;:

* % 0

#$$%%#! $! ! # 4 !

$! ! '

,# $#1 ! $!

! !!'

(##! )! !! #% + ! #

()+'

#%%4 / !'

$%!

$#!!

)!#% '

*!, $#1 <#, =

> :'

> '

4,01'

0 #%%4

$%!

!# $#%!1 '

? 0 #

#1 #% # 7#!

##7

$$%%#!

/ $! ! !!'

(##! )! !! #% + #! #

()+'

8,# 7#,

/ !

$#!!

)!#% '

0#!

.##1'

$ #$$%%#!'

7 #% #

! * #! 4 !#3 ! !! #!

! / 7 # ! %%

# $$%%#!

#*! 7 7

#0!

1#'

%$ #% $0% ,# 7

!#!!

4, !, 0 * #0 4! $! ! !! 7#!

#%74 !, #%

! * #!

*! ,# 7 '

)! !! @0#1'

7 '

,4'

% %1 #*! 0 7 %# * !

#% A#

! !!

%!!

* 0 * * !

$#!!

# #7 ,% !#3 $%#

7%1'

# % :

!%*'

<! >! %# $! :

4, >!'

%!!

> ;

$ $$%%#!'

,#1 *% #! $%# #!

A ,#'

% $! ! !! :

7%1'

* ! !! # % :

>! %# * #1 <!

*# % '

#1 !#!

$ 7 #7# !

, '

$ ! %

7#!

>! %# :

%% #1 $

4, 4!

/ 7 ! !! ,# / 7 %!!'

#%!,7, ! !! 3$!

/ 7 %!!'

#%%4 / '

$ ! 4# ! 7 4,% #1

%# $ ! $#! <! 1

** #%'

$ !! #!,

$ B 7

4 7 ,##!'

# %1 $ %$ #% !,7,!

!# '

4 %% 7%1 0 !! 7#! %!!

@ ! ## %#0% '

%# %!! =

> :'

4, % * 7 %!!

4,01 7#! 0 !! <!

4# A #%!1 # $$%%#!'

$! ! !! *

$!!

#!, !1 #7

7#! $ $% $ %

*!, !#! ,# 7 #*! 1# 4 !, !4 1# / 7'

% #0% $#1 $#%!1 '

? $ %

%# #

#%% 7 $ $ !

4, % <! 7 ! !! #%%4

$%!

*!,

%# # ,'

4#'

% 34 8 :'

!#1 #!

,!4'

2#B# 0#7,'

.,#3,#

0 !!

7#! 0

$!'

#7# 4!

! !! <! $ !! 7

,4'

#%%1 *

$ !!

@!, !#

> ,4 7 $$%%#!C !!

$%!

>$ 7 ,4

$%% 7'

*%%4 # %7#%

> '

! $! !

$ #$$%%#!'

$! ! !! %!!

# !

4 *# !'

!#! 7

$!# 7#! #%#1

#! %!! =

! * #! 4, 4 %1 7 ! !!'

4% %1 ,# $ ! 7 $#%!1 #!

$$%%#!

4 !

$! !

%# 7#! ,# 0

$! ,# $#!%1 0 <! 7 $ !!

$%!

!, 0# 3$'

#$$# , 4 !

% 8! !! ) #'

$#1 7 % * ! , #0

) 4 !! !#!!

* % $! ! !!'

inter alia $ ! !

#$$%%#!'

1 07 7

0 $$!#% %# %#

!,# 43 7 #1 $! #%!

#%% '

4, !1

!#! $%1

#0!'

4, !3 #1 %# %!!

> ;'

!, .##1'

#7# 7,!

43D %#

%!!

!#! 7 *% 7 $ #% ,# 7 9! # %4#1 2#<#!

0# 7!

>! %# !, 1#

$! ! !! >! #%% $ 0% ,%$

77! $#! !#%3 !%1 #7

!#!%1

24'

#!! ! #

#%% ,4 $ !1 # #0!

4 !,!

$ $ '

%!!

$%# ! 4 # %!!'

$ ! 7 !

$ *

!# '

,4 7 ,#0 !

3 $$ 7?, 3 7 43'

0,# !

6,#*!'

!# ! !%$, #%%1'

#3 #0!

4,#0! $'

* # %4#1

-0<!%1'

%!! =

> #7# 7,!

!4 #1C ! '

4,!, 4#!

! 2

%% 1!

#7# 7#! # $$! !1

*! / 7 0# 3'

#7#

$%# ! 4 #7# !

%!!

> 7# 7 * , 7 !1 %# 7 43$%# 4 !,!

$ $

>$%##! 7,!

!,7, %!!

24'

-0<!%1'

#7# 7,!

%# ;?=

2 !%$, #%%1 * ** 7 #% * 4 %% ! 0# #!

#7# ,4 $ !1

# 7 ** %!1 % 7 #1 #% $0%

2 #3 $ $$ #%

! * #! ! #! #! %#'

%!!

> =

# #% %#

; :

# #0!

;

2 0 !! / 7 $!

43 ! %%

#7# 7,!

#% #'

4 !,!

! 7 #!?#!!# , 7 #%

! * #!

2 $#!%1 #3

> $ #%

! * #!

24'

$ !,

!# '

,# $#!!'

%!! ;

> '

<! #!, !

! !! #% 0# ># #$$%%#!'

# $%7 #% %#'

0 # 7 #0!

1 %7 #!

!,#*! 1!

#7# / ! %1 #1

2 #7# 0 !! 7#!

! 7 *<!

#% %% ! 7,!

4# 0 #!

%!! #!'

> '

#7# !#! 4 , 4 !,#4 7#! 7,!

$ $

#7# >$ #0 % !1

! %!!

> #!%1 %*!

!1 #*! 0 !! 7 #$$% #! / ) # # %4#1 - 4 !,!

3 7 #1 #$$#% $! ! !!'

> ;

F$ <! #$$%%#!'

># #% A#

< $#!!

*# % 7 4, #1 ! 4 %% !#3

# %

= :

>$ #0 % !1 ! * 7 # #7 0 * >

#7# <! %#

4, % 7#! 7 >! %#'

07,!

,# 0 7#! ! %# *!, >! 4% 7#! 4 $#! !

# 4 $0%

2 ! ! !%1 :

*# % 7 4, #1 ! 4 %% ! #! $ !#3 7 7 #!

! / 7

24'

4#1 # # % :

#7# 7,!

>! ! %%

! 7 G$%&'()*))% +,(+$-*./%+)*0

* ,# !#3 !,#

%# ,# %1 43 !4 #1'

,# / ! !,#*!

2 ,# / ) # # %4#1 %1 #3 7 > * !

4#1 # $#1!

$#%!1 4, %7#%%1 0 $#1

#7# ! 7#!

4# $#%!1 #!'

$! %!! =

#3 $#1 $#%!1 #!'

$ %

6,#*!'

4 4 !! !1 $#1!

#*! $#%!1 #!

,4'

! 4,#! !#3 !,$ %1 #!

0%#! !#7 1!

#7# 7,!

$ /

%!!

4, ,'

*# mala fide #!!$!

0%#! ! 0#

# !

E $% #! * % ! !

*# !#% #! # 0,#%* $!

%# - 7% .7 #*!

7 $%# 7 $#! #7! # !, 0,#%*'

$! ! * % #$$%%#!'

$# 7 !# % #

* 7 %# - 7% .7'

$##7#$, ;

/7!

# >!# ! 14.

A perusal of the aforestated facts would clearly indicate that the petitioner had not completed his course. He claims that he had availed leave for his marriage and thereafter, he could not join on time on account of floods in his native place and thereafter, when he submitted his joining, he was not permitted to join. Petitioner further claims that he was depressed by the circumstances and accordingly, he tendered his resignation. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentInstitute had referred to various Annexures, indicating that the petitioner had availed of 206 leaves and also that the resignation tendered by him has been accepted in principle. However, since the petitioner was leaving the course midway; accordingly, in terms of the prospectus and the agreement executed by the petitioner with respondentInstitute, he was liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/.

15.

The issue with regard to the payment of penalty amount in terms of the agreement/prospectus and for that matter on the basis of a bond, is no more res integra as the same has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

!! "

#$ wherein it has been held that all doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under : "35. The submission of Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is that the conditions of the bond per se amount to 'forced labour' and thus are violative of Article 23 (1) of the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi expostulated the said submission by referring to Article 23 (2) which confers power on the State to impose compulsory service for public purpose. Reliance was placed upon the Constituent Assembly Debates by Mr. Dwivedi explaining

: the scope of compulsory employment for public purpose under Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a decent stipend cannot complain that they are made to perform 'forced labour', especially after the Appellants have taken an informed decision to avail the benefits of admission in government medical colleges and received subsidized education. By no means, the service rendered by the Appellants in Government hospitals would fall under the expression of 'forced labour'.

39. The argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants that compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their profession and thus, would be contrary to section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The High Court of Calcutta repelled this submission by holding that the compulsory bond does not amount to any restraint on the professional activity of the Appellants. The High Court observed that the Appellants are offered the job of Medical Officer in the State of West Bengal and that the covenant in the compulsory bond operates only during the period of such employment. Relying upon the dictum of Lord Morris in % & ' ! ( ) * +, ( $ that: "if A made a contract under which he willingly agreed to serve B on reasonable terms for a few years and to give his whole working time to B, it would be surprising indeed, if it were sought to describe the contract as being in restraint of trade; in fact, such a contract would very likely be for the advancement of trade."

The High Court concluded that a contract entered into by Appellants to serve the government for a few years under reasonable terms cannot be described as one in restraint of trade. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court of Calcutta. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the conditions of compulsory bonds for admission to postgraduate and superSpeciality courses in government medical colleges are not in violation of section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

40. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Writ Petitions and the Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Consequently, all the Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein".

16.

In view of the aforestated legal position and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, even if it is to be taken that the resignation tendered by the petitioner has not been accepted, the fact remains that the petitioner did not complete his course inasmuch as, he had availed more than 200 leaves. I also agree with the submissions made by Mr. Jhanji, learned senior counsel representing the Institute that the course for which the petitioner was admitted, was for the Session 20182020 and it is not possible to make the petitioner join at this stage to complete the said course. It also appears that the petitioner is working with the Indian Railways and by way of filing the instant writ petition, he is only seeking exemption from the payment of penalty amount of Rs.5,00,000/.

Once the petitioner himself has executed an agreement in terms of the prospectus with the respondent Institute that he will not resign his/her appointment without completing the post graduate course to which he/she has been admitted by the Institute and those who leave the said course after joining, shall be liable to pay a penalty as per chart mentioned therein, accordingly the petitioner would be bound by the same. In this case, since the petitioner had not completed his course and took more than 200 leaves and further sought to leave the course after one year and within two years, accordingly, the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/ to respondentInstitute, moreso when the petitioner has not disputed the terms of the agreement/bond and its applicability in any manner whatsoever.

Moreso, it calls to reason that such like course i.e. M.D. (Internal Medicine) or similar other courses are vacancy based/seat based and the same is occupied (as by the petitioner in this case) after going through entire process of admission for a specified course. The withdrawal therefrom would entail blocking of the source/vacancy on which a suitable candidate is to acquire qualification. It is in these circumstances that such binding clauses are incorporated in the Agreement/bond to secure the institution and the government resources utilized therein as also to balance the interest of the candidate."

% #$$# 7 0,#%*

#7 %# - 7% .7 ** #$$% #! %#!

*# !

! #0 $

** 7 #% ,$#! ! '

4, %1 >$%# '

! * #! $ $$!

!,*

2 *!, #7 #!, $! ! !! 4, #%%4

! 0 7 %# * !

#% A#'

0%# $

2 *!, 7,!

>$%# #0

! %# - 7% .7 ,#

!! #

#% %#! 7 %# $

#1'

4, *# !#%%1

,!%1 #7 $$%%#!

0 #%%4 /

#0 * #1'

4, #0 !#1 4##!'

$ #%%1 4, ! %1 ! #! ,# 0 7 # % :

> =

7 ,#'

$$%%#!

0 0# / 7

! 7

!#% !, ,#'

0 7 #3 $ !

? %# %# 7

0!4

*!,

! %1

,##!

! !

0 !! %!!

4,01'

>$% !%1 !

$! ! !! ,# %

# $ #$$%%#!'

!$%#!

!! 7

%#!%1 #7 $! ! !!

$! 7#!

#%%4 !#3 0* !

4 47 #'

!,'

% * 7,!

$! ! < 7#!

# $ $% #!#% /!

$7 1 7 0* !

4 < <#, 0 7 #0 !#1 %#! !

% 8! !! ) #

% % $ /7! -$ 8!

) # ,1,233)/2'456"7)+,7)7'% ".,.2)7/*8& -. , / 01$ 2 Dr. Rohit Kumar Vs. Secretary Office Of Lt. Governor Of Delhi and Ors' 2021 (8) SCC 381 and 'S.D.Manohara Vs. Konkan Raiway Corporation Limited and ors' 2024 SCC Online SC 2546, in furtherance of his arguments.

;

!#'

%# -

% #$$# 7 0,#%* $! 0 ! #$$# , !, 8!

%# ,# $$ #! #% *# ! 7#

! #0 1 !#!

2 #7 * % 4 !

$! ! # #*!!,7,!

%1 !!

4# $#1!

$#%!1 #!'

4, !,4 % #0% $#1 ! #7!

! ?

*!, #7 !

.%1'

4, ()+'

8,# 7#,

! 7 ># #!

%% 7

4,#'

.##1'

$% 0

,#7 0 7

! )! !! E#! #% )$!# 80 +!# 6!

)E) 8+6 ))-'

%, !, $ # !

)!#%

!, 0%#! !#7

! %# - 8% ,# > ! # #7!

! !! ()+'

8,# 7#, $ !, 1#'

*# % 7 4, ,'

% #0% $#1 $#%!1 #! 7 '

2 #4 #!!! 8!

%# '

#7!

! ! !,*'

% #0% $ !

% 3 4# '

47%1 7,!

# -

% #% * # * 2#'

$#!!

)!#%

()+'

8,# 7#,

! ,# / $#!!

! %%

,# #%#1 ## %

#% 0 $ ! !

# 34%7 2#

$#!!

/ ) # # %4#1 - '

%# *1 # $ ! 0 7 E 0/ ! 8! * #!

E8?$$ # ! %# $#!!

0 !! 1 07 7'

,# !!

$%!

#$$# #%#1 9! # %4#1'

#$$#!

#% 0 #7 $$%%#!

%$!

#!! $! ! * % ** %#1 %# ,

!,*'

! %# - 8% /7!

$# %# - 7% .7'

** #1 %%7#% !1 $ !1 $#1 #% $!

#$$#%

9 ,# ,# %#

% $#! ,# 7 !,7, '

!, #0% # !#

$ #1 7 4, ## % /7!

$# %# - 7% .7 *# %

*# !

$$ ! '

#%4#1 #1 4 %% 7 $* ! #$#!

#0 ,!

$ !

#% * !1 # #7'

% 0%# ! !#3 $! ! !!

! !! #% A#

9 ,# ! B $ #! $#! ! 07,!

$! *# !#% $ ! ##! !,*'

$$%%#!

,# !#3

#0%1 %7 $ %#'

!#! 7 1#

!%*'

4, *# 0 $$

#% 4 !

$! !

6, 4, $ ! 4 !

$! ! #0!

%#?#0 $$%%#!

0* .##1'

!#1'

$#!%1 !#! $! ! $$%%#!! ! %$ #% $0% #*! 7 7

#0!

$,# B $##7#$, $! !

HEven if presuming that the extension of leave of the petitioner was only upto 19.07.2020 then for a mere five days delay due to heavy floods in the native place of petitioner in Bihar, can the petioner be debarred from continuing his MD course in Internal Medicine in which he already has devoted 1 long year from January 2018 to December 2018." %#

% $$%%#!

*# %

*# !#% $ ! 0 !

! #$$ 4 !!

!#!!

,4 7 $%7 #0 '

!#! 7 1#

!%* $#! 0 4 !,#4#% 7#!

$ ! <1 # !, 8!'

7# 7 $%1!

) # # %4#1'

% #$$# 7 0,#%* #$$%%#!'

# *# !#% $ !

6,'

#0#!%1

%# 7 %!1 $$ #! #% *# !

$ '

!, 7 !%* <#% * 3 7 #1 < !#0% % * $ !

% 8! !! ) #

$%# !#3 $! ! !! *# !! $ 7

$#! #0 > 7# 7 $ #% !,7,! 4'

$!>!

,4 4 77% !

0 7 $#%!1

%# 3 4# !,*'

!# *%%1

0#!

#$$#!

$$%%#!

7,!

# % !4 0#!

#!! < ># #!, #7%

$$%%#!

! !1 !4# $#! ! !1 #!

%#7

! #0 !

#0% ##7 4 $0%

2 !3 #4#1

,# !,

$!!

# #! 4,

% ,# /

%1 $* !

) 4 #!!'

%7 !, 8!

9 #'

!,*'

#7!

* 7 %# - 7% .7 4% 0

$%1 0

$ !!

<! '

!, !#7'

$ #%%1 4 $ % # *# !

4, $#! #0

; 1 !#!

!# !#0% , *# ! 0 7 $%1 ) # # %4#1 $!

#! /7! % $ #$$%%#!'

4% #$$% #0% $ % # *# !

!# $!

# 4, 7 %!1 $%7 #0 $$ #! #% *# !'

!# % , #0

)

!# '

4 * 7 !* $# %# - 7% .7'

! /7!

%!#!%1 $!

$#!!

#$$#%

: !

;

smriti 9,!, $#3 7?#

I?E 9,!, $!#0%

I?E