Mes Medical College v. Shireen M.T.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J:— This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.2017 passed in W.P (C) No. 1275 of 2017 by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby, the writ petition filed by the 32 private respondents, who were students, has been allowed. The dispute essentially was with regard to release of documents/certificates which were submitted at the time of admission as also the MBBS certificate which they had earned by completion of the said course. They were being withheld by the management of the college.

2. The learned single Judge, after due notice and hearing the parties, held that action of the management of the college in withholding the certificates of the writ petitioners was not in accordance with law, as the college had no such authority. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the third respondent to the writ petition has come up in this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the private contesting respondents/students, and with their consent, we dispose of this appeal at this stage itself.

4. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether clause (8) of Exhibit P5, being an agreement executed between the parents of the students and the management of the college, authorises the management to retain the certificates submitted at the time of admission or the MBBS certificate earned by them upon completion of the course.

5. On behalf of the college, the appellant, it is submitted that colleges are authorised by the Government to take bonds from the students and their guardians, including bond for compulsory rural service. As per the bond, if a student upon completion of MBBS course does not perform rural service, they have the authority to withhold the certificates to enforce service.

6. To the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that even if clause (8) is read, such singular result, as urged by the appellant, does not emanate.

7. We would first refer to clauses (8), (9) and (10) of Exhibit P5 agreement, which read thus:

“8. The certificates submitted by the candidate at the time of admission will be released to the candidate only after the successful completion of one year compulsory employment or on payment of the compensation as prescribed below.

9. The Student hereby undertake and agree to pay a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs, reducing the actual amount of tuition fee already paid by the student for the whole academic course.

10. If the candidate does not want to be bound for compulsory employment the student shall pay the amount specified above as compensation to the Medical College Management and if the Student failed to do so the Parent/Guardian named as (2) in this agreement shall be liable to pay the same and if not done so it shall be recovered from him of his properties movable or immovable.”

8. On a simple reading, clause (8) which learned counsel for the appellant concedes as the only source of authority to withhold the MBBS certificate, in our opinion, cannot be accepted on the face of it. This clause clearly stipulates that it deals with certificates submitted by the candidates “at the time of admission”. The MBBS certificate is not a certificate deposited at the time of admission. Rather, it is earned upon completion of the course. Thus, this clause does not contemplate any such withholding of MBBS certificate. This answers the main question. The subsidiary question is with regard to other certificates which are submitted at the time of admission. If we once again refer to the clause aforesaid and read it in the light of what is stated in clauses (9) and (10), clause (8) clearly provides a contingency that the authorities are entitled to withhold certificates submitted for non-performance of one year compulsory employment. But, it is an option built therein with regard to the payment of compensation as prescribed in clauses (9) and (10). Thus, to say that the management has absolute right to withhold all the certificates till completion of one year of compulsory service is not correct.

9. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge whereby, the learned single Judge having referred to the prospectus, Government order and the agreement entered into between the management and the Government held that the clause of withholding the certificates is not contemplated by either of them. What is contemplated is only a monetary compensation for non-performance of one year of compulsory employment. This position stands abundantly clear from a combined reading of clauses (8), (9) and (10) as well. Thus, we find no reason to take a different view in the matter.

10. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.