KRISHNA KANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of common questions raised and similarity of facts, we dispose of these writ petitions, three in number, by the following common judgment. We would refer to the facts as stated in Writ Petition (SB) No. 284 of 2014. In the year 2010, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") advertised 564 posts of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic). Petitioners were interviewed by the Commission in 2011. In October, 2012, petitioners got admission to the Post Graduation course in Ayurveda. Petitioners were expected to furnish a bond, according to which, they could not leave the Post Graduation course before its completion without paying back the entire amount of stipend received by them according to the relevant pay-band. Subsequently, in 2012, the Commission declared the results and the petitioners were included in the merit list. In 2013, the Government issued appointment notifications requiring the appointees, which included the petitioners, to report in the Directorate in connection with their joining. Petitioners, after reporting in the Directorate, made representation for grant of leave for higher studies. According to them, posting orders were issued. They made requests for grant of leave without pay to complete the course. 15.01.2014 is the date, which is referred to, to indicate that, in pursuance of the direction of the Government, the Director submitted information regarding the candidates, who were pursuing higher studies and appointed as Medical Officers. Petitioners made further representations. The Director wrote to the petitioners to join latest by 31st March, 2014, failing which, their appointments would be cancelled. Petitioners made further representation repeating their earlier request. There was no favorable decision and, hence, petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the prayer as follows:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, only because the matter was delayed by the Commission and the petitioners secured admission to the Post Graduation course, petitioners thought it fit to join the Post Graduation course. They have executed the bonds. In terms thereof, petitioners are expected to continue with the course and, in case they discontinue the course, they run the risk of having to pay very large sums of money. On the other hand, they have secured appointments with the Government. It is the case of the petitioners that, if the petitioners are permitted to complete the course and, at the same time, keep the appointments; the public health system will be benefited, as they will have the benefit of a Post Graduate education behind them, which will better equip them to serve the common man. On the other hand, if the relief, which is sought by them, is not granted; the result will be that they will either have to lose their appointments or will have to end up paying large sums of money, which they have agreed to pay in terms of the bonds executed by them. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no embargo against the grant of study leave to a probationer under the Rules. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, wherein, it is pointed out that in similar circumstances, the Rajasthan High Court took the view that there is no prohibition and, therefore, the relief can be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that this Court is having extra-ordinary jurisdiction and, to mete out justice to the parties in the peculiar set of facts, appropriate orders may be passed to protect the interest of the petitioners.