Mahesh Kumar P.S. vs State of Raj.

Arun Bhansali, J.—These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners, who after passing the Pre P.G. Examination joined P.G. Course in respective specialities; at the time of joining the P.G. Course, the petitioners executed surety bond for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- and also submitted bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in case of their leaving course prematurely. Further the bond provided for refund of the stipend received during the period of P.G. Course.

The petitioners got other options in P.G. by way of appearing in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (''NEET'') and joined courses with other institutions; when the said bank guarantees were invoked and the bonds were enforced by the respondent State, the petitioners were told to deposit the amount of stipend and, on failure to do the same, the respondents refused to release the original certificates, which led to filing of the present writ petitions questioning the legality and validity of recovering the stipend amount as well as enforcing the surety bond to the tune of Rs. 5, 00,000/-.

By way of interim order, the respondents were directed to invoke the bank guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000/- executed by the petitioners and the petitioners were further required to deposit various sums by different orders and the respondents were directed to release all the documents so as to enable the petitioners to seek admission elsewhere. The recovery of amount of stipend was stayed and it was made clear that in the event of dismissal of the writ petitions, the petitioners would be liable to deposit the amount.

It is submitted by both the learned counsel that the issue pertaining to enforcement of surety bond stands concluded by order of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3000/2011 (Dr. Vishnu Sharma v. State of Raj. & Ors.) decided on 07.04.2011, wherein, the condition of paying the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on leaving the course in between has been upheld by this Court and the issue pertaining to refund of stipend amount stands concluded by order of this Court in Dr. Prafull Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, , wherein, the condition of paying the stipend back, in case a student leaves P.G. Course before its completion, was declared void and was quashed and set aside and, therefore, the present writ petitions be decided in the light of two orders of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further prayed that the petitioners may be permitted to pay the outstanding amount, if any, in installments.

The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be just and proper.

Consequently, the writ petitions are partly allowed. While challenge of the petitioners against recovery/demand of the amount of surety bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- is rejected, the demand made by the respondents for recovering the stipend amount from the petitioners is quashed and set aside. The outstanding amount of surety bond, if any, shall be deposited by the petitioners with the respondents in six equal monthly installments starting with the month of December, 2014. No order as to costs.