Madras High Court: State cannot indefinitely withhold a doctor’s postgraduate certificate when administrative delay prevents bond service

The appellant, a non-service candidate admitted under the All India Quota to the M.S. (Orthopaedics) course at Madras Medical College, completed the course from 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2019.

Under the bond executed by him, he undertook to serve in a Government Medical College or Hospital for two years, failing which he would be liable to pay ₹40,00,000.

After completion of the course, he informed the respondents that he had been selected for a fellowship at Ganga Medical Centre, Coimbatore.

The respondents returned all his original certificates except the M.S. (Orthopaedics) certificate, on his assurance that he would fulfil the bond after completing the fellowship.

A posting order was issued on 30 November 2019, but the appellant did not join because he was undergoing the fellowship, a fact known to the department.

After completing the fellowship on 30 June 2020, he represented on 14 July 2020 that he was ready to serve and requested posting.

The department stated that, due to the COVID-19 situation, it was unable to issue a posting order.

The appellant subsequently issued a legal notice and made a further representation seeking return of his certificate on the ground that the bond period had lapsed.

The learned Single Judge dismissed W.P. No.1110 of 2024, holding that the appellant could not rely on the lapse of time after requesting that the posting order not be acted upon, and directed the respondents to issue a posting order.

The present writ appeal challenged that order.

1. Whether the respondents could continue to withhold the appellant’s original M.S. (Orthopaedics) certificate when he had offered to serve pursuant to the bond but the department failed to provide a posting within the relevant period.

2. Whether the appellant’s failure to join pursuant to the posting order dated 30 November 2019 disentitled him from claiming that the bond obligation had lapsed.

3. Whether an educational institution or the State could retain an educational certificate to secure performance of a service bond or recovery of the bond amount.

The Court applied the principle that a service bond creates reciprocal obligations: the candidate must make himself available for service, while the department must provide a posting and utilise that service within a reasonable time.

It relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A. No.799 of 2019, which held that where the State fails to provide employment within the bond period, the bond becomes infructuous and the certificates must be returned.

The Court also relied on the department’s letter dated 10 February 2022, particularly paragraph 5, which directed that certificates be returned where the bond period had expired without an appointment order being issued.

Further, following P. Karthikeyan v. The Dean, Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, MANU/TN/1119/2026, the Court held that educational certificates are not marketable commodities and cannot be withheld to secure compliance with a monetary or contractual obligation; there is no general lien over educational certificates under Section 171 of the Contract Act, and any claim for breach of bond must be pursued through an independent legal remedy.

The Court held that the posting order dated 30 November 2019 did not resolve the matter because it was overtaken by the appellant’s ongoing fellowship, of which the department was aware and which it had accepted.

Crucially, after completing the fellowship, the appellant expressly offered himself for service on 14 July 2020.

The department’s inability to issue a posting because of the COVID-19 situation could not fairly be used to keep the bond alive indefinitely or penalise the appellant for an administrative failure.

Since the appellant had performed his part by making himself available and the department failed to provide a posting within a reasonable period, the bond could not continue indefinitely.

The department’s own 10 February 2022 policy letter supported the return of certificates once the bond period expired without an appointment order.

Independently, retention of the M.S. certificate was impermissible because an educational certificate could not be treated as security for the State’s contractual or monetary claim.

It directed the respondents to return the appellant’s original M.S. (Orthopaedics) certificate within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.

The Court clarified that the respondents remained free to pursue any other remedy available in law in respect of any alleged bond liability.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.