Non-execution of a service bond does not defeat accepted minimum-service obligations or liability for premature resignation.

The petitioner was selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 28 November 2024 and appointed as Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, at Government Medical College, Datia, by order dated 2 April 2025, carrying a pay scale of ₹68,900–2,05,500 (Level 11).

The advertisement and appointment order required her to serve the concerned Government Medical College for three years or until attaining 65 years of age, whichever was earlier, and to execute a stamped bond providing for payment equivalent to one year’s salary/honorarium in case of premature departure.

The petitioner joined at Datia on 1 May 2025 but did not execute the bond, despite being directed to do so by the College authorities on 23 May 2025.

She subsequently sought resignation and early relieving to join Government Medical College, Jhansi, where she had been appointed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The respondents required her to deposit ₹12,81,540, equivalent to one year’s salary and allowances, as a condition for accepting her resignation and issuing a relieving order.

She deposited the amount under protest through Demand Draft dated 8 July 2025 and was relieved on 22 July 2025.

Her representations seeking refund were not acted upon. She therefore challenged the communication dated 27 May 2025 and sought refund with interest.

Whether the petitioner could avoid the minimum-service condition and the consequential liability to pay one year’s salary merely because she had not formally executed the contemplated bond?

Whether the respondents were entitled to insist upon payment of ₹12,81,540 as a condition for the petitioner’s premature relieving from service?

The Court applied the terms of the advertisement and appointment order, under which the petitioner was required to serve for the prescribed minimum period and execute a bond providing for payment equivalent to one year’s salary/honorarium upon premature departure.

It applied the principle that a person who accepts an appointment with full knowledge of its conditions cannot subsequently avoid those conditions by relying on her own failure to comply with one of them.

The Court relied on Dr. Chaitnya Subhash Kulkarni v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 1186 of 2023, decided on 20 August 2024, which held that non-execution of a bond does not defeat a condition already incorporated in the advertisement and appointment order.

It further relied on Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 607, which upheld the competence of State Governments to prescribe compulsory-service bond conditions and held that such conditions do not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where they operate during the employment period.

The Court also referred to Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1107, concerning minimum-service obligations and payment upon premature resignation.

The Court held that the bond requirement was not an independent or subsequently imposed condition; it was expressly contained in both the advertisement and the appointment order, which the petitioner accepted before joining service.

The employment relationship arose from the appointment order itself, while the bond was merely the contemplated instrument for giving effect to the substantive minimum-service obligation.

Consequently, the petitioner could not accept the appointment, serve for only a short period, and then rely on her own failure to execute the bond to nullify the associated payment obligation.

The Court found that the condition was connected with the continuity of medical services and was intended to discourage premature departure after selection and appointment.

It was therefore neither an impermissible restraint on future employment under Section 27 nor a fresh liability created by the impugned communication.

The petitioner’s assertion that payment was made under protest did not alter the respondents’ entitlement to enforce the accepted appointment conditions.

The communication dated 27 May 2025 was upheld, and the respondents were found entitled to insist upon payment of ₹12,81,540 before relieving the petitioner.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was held not entitled to refund of the amount deposited.