Dr. Rohan Kumar & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

This writ petition is moved on urgent basis. Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners at the outset undertakes on behalf of

his clients that deficit Court fees being those paid less aggregate of Court fees to be paid by each petitioner will be put in by tomorrow. Mr. Dhar

submits, petitioners are students under West Bengal University of Health Services and they have various degrees. They had executed bonds to enrol

themselves for course study in the University after which they had obtained their degrees. Bonds were furnished in compliance with initial

requirements. Subsequent bonds were furnished in compliance with modified requirements.

Modified requirements were in extending period of rural service and increase in penalty amount, in the event degree holder having furnished the bond

did not want to serve out the period. Mr. Dhar submits, inter alia, his clients challeged the modified requirements and were successful. By judgment

dated 3rd November, 2017 made in W.P. 18035 (W) of 2016 (Dr. Naval Patel & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) a learned single Judge

of this Court had found, inter alia, as follows:

“5. The condition to render three year’s government service or make payment of penalty @ Rs.10 lakhs per year per student is unreasonable

and arbitrary. …….

The notification dated 10th June, 2014 is unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and is set aside. The notification dated 31st July, 2013 subject to

clauses 6 and 7 above will also apply to petitioners covered by the 10th June, 2014 notificatin.â€​

He submits, challenge in this writ petition is against order dated 21st June, 2018 issued by Government of West Bengal, Deparment of Health &

Family Welfare, requiring non-service candidates who have passed out P.G. Degree/Diploma examination, 2018 conducted by the University and are

in bond contract to opt by specified format to either serve in rural areas or deposit bond amount for not rendering such service. The order also says

persons who do not exercise option will be deemed to have agreed to serve out their periods in rural areas. Pursuant to the impugned order, Mr. Dhar

submits, either or option mentioned in the specified format have been stated in a way to overcome or circumvent the said judgment. Specified format

for exercise of option is reproduced below:

“1. I agree to render rural service for ………… years a mentioned in the bond executed by me.

OR

I exercise option to pay the entire bond amount……………….. (Rupees ……………………) and after depositing such bond amount, I shall

not be liable to render rural service.â€​

Though appeal has been preferred against said judgment but to the best of knowledge of his clients, there is no stay order. His clients therefore are

before Court for seeking a declaration that State can only ask for exercise of option in terms of said judgment.Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate,

Additional Government Pleader, appears on behalf of State and relies upon judgment dated 18th June, 2018 of a Division Bench of this Court on an

application made in M.A.T. 507 of 2018 (State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Rahul Bansal & Ors.) and submits, impugned order was issued upon

taking into consideration this judgment. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order nor the option format. Petitioners are required to exercise their

option. Mr. Dhar in reply submits, judgment dated 18th June, 2018 was on the issue of whether State could compel a degree holder to serve out

agreed period of service in spite of the degree holder having paid stipulated penalty for obtaining release of his documents.

Petitioners appear to have come to Court before they have a cause. This Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned order. The format is a cyclostyled

format they are to exercise their options by. They are aware of the impact of judgment dated 3rd November, 2017 on their bonds.

Petitioners are at liberty to exercise their respective options on the format given by State as per their understanding of impact of the said judgment

dated 3rd November, 2017 on their respective bonds. It is only after State does something, a cause on either side giving rise to controversy may arise.

With above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Since this writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, respondents cannot

be deemed to have admitted allegations made in the petition.