Suparna Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Brief

Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin services as a

Medical Officer pursuant to the posting order issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital in continuation of the letter dated 23.04.2018 of the

Director General, Medical and Health, and in terms of the notice dated 25.04.2020.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner joined her MBBS Course at the Government Medical College, Haldwani in 2012, under

the State quota, after qualifying in the medical entrance examination. She completed her MBBS course, in the said Government Medical College, in

the year 2017 and her internship on 27.03.2018. In terms of the bond executed by the petitioner, she was required to discharge service in the hilly and

rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand for a period of five years.

The petitioner was informed, by proceedings dated 17.05.2018, that she should report at the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital on

16.05.2018 and that she was being posted as a Medical Officer on contract basis at the Government Allopathic Hospital, Okhaldunga against the

vacant post of Medical Officer. The petitioner claims to have given her joining report on 18.05.2020 and to have worked thereat till September 2018.

She claims her inability to continue as a Medical Officer, on contract basis thereafter, was because of her personal difficulties.

While matters stood thus, the petitioner was informed, by the Principal, Government Medical College, Haldwani on 25.04.2020, that she was absent

from her place of posting; she was being given an opportunity to join duty and report at the office of the Principal, Medical College, Haldwani, and

subsequently at her place of posting within two weeks, failing which she should deposit the bond amount with interest. She was also informed that, if

she failed to do so, proceedings for recovery of the bond amount would be initiated against her.

The petitioner claims to have requested that she be permitted to join duty, and as she was not so permitted, she had no choice but to invoke the

extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The submission of Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand, is that the petitioner

had abstained from duty, after having joined in May 2018, necessitating action being taken against her for unauthorized absence. The fact, however,

remains that the petitioner now expresses her willingness to join duty pursuant to the letter issued by the Principal, Medical College, Haldwani on

25.04.2020. The respondents are, undoubtedly, entitled to take action against her for her earlier unauthorized absence after she joined duty in May

2018. As she has now expressed her willingness to join duty, the bond amount cannot be recovered if she joins duty and serves for a period of five

years in the hilly and rural areas of the State of Uttarakhand.

Suffice it, instead of keeping the writ petition pending on the file of this Court, to direct that, in case the petitioner reports for duty at the office of

the Director General, Medical and Health, Dehradun within one week from today, the Director General shall issue posting orders to her within three

days thereafter. Within the time stipulated by the Director General, Medical and Health, the petitioner shall report for duty at the place where she is

posted. In case, she reports for duty at the place where she is posted, within the time stipulated hereinabove, no coercive steps shall be taken against

her by the respondents to recover the bond amount provided, of course, that she works for the stipulated period of five years. In case, the petitioner

does not comply with any of the aforesaid directions, it is open to the respondents to recover the bond amount from her in accordance with law.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on whether or not disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner, for her

abstention from duty, for these are all matters for the official respondents to consider in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties, by tomorrow, on payment of the prescribed charges.