Suppressing a material service undertaking disentitles a petitioner to discretionary writ relief.

The petitioner, appointed as a Demonstrator at Government Medical College, Shivpuri, pursued an M.D. in Respiratory Medicine after furnishing an undertaking concerning service obligations.

The college’s certificate granting conditional permission required him to continue serving as a Demonstrator and to be available for NMC inspection; the undertaking provided for payment of one year’s salary if he left before completing three years of service.

After completing his postgraduate studies, he joined as a Senior Resident in the Department of TB and Chest Medicine on 24 August 2023, and later resigned on 31 December 2025.

On 30 May 2026, respondent No. 3 directed him to deposit ₹14,45,904 for alleged non-compliance with the conditions attached to his higher studies.

The petitioner challenged that demand under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that he had completed the required service and that the demand was unlawful.

The respondents relied on the undertaking and conditional permission.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed the undertaking with his petition, although the respondents later produced it.

1. Whether the demand for ₹14,45,904, made on the basis of the petitioner’s undertaking and conditional permission to pursue higher studies, was liable to be set aside under Article 226

2. Whether the petitioner’s service before and after his postgraduate studies—including his service as a Senior Resident—satisfied the relevant service conditions

Article 226 relief is discretionary, and a petitioner must disclose all material facts and documents and approach the Court with clean hands.

The Court relied on *Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India*, (2007) 8 SCC 449, and *K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.*, (2008) 12 SCC 481, for the requirement of full disclosure in proceedings invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.

It also relied on *Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, (2010) 2 SCC 114, concerning the duty to present complete and correct facts.

A person who voluntarily accepts conditions in exchange for permission or a benefit cannot disregard those conditions when challenging a subsequent demand founded on them.

The Court also treated service in the post of Senior Resident as distinct from service in the petitioner’s original post of Demonstrator, absent an order modifying the applicable conditions.

The undertaking was material to determining the petitioner’s obligations, and he knew of it because he had executed it.

His failure to disclose it in the writ petition meant that he had not presented the complete facts; the respondents subsequently placed it on record.

The Court therefore declined to examine whether the petitioner’s earlier service or later service as a Senior Resident counted toward the required period, noting that he had produced no competent-authority order modifying the original conditions or permitting Senior Resident service to count as Demonstrator service.

It held that the petitioner could not establish compliance merely by relying on permission to pursue higher studies or an experience certificate, and that the timing of the demand after his resignation did not, by itself, invalidate it.

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to set aside the order dated 30 May 2026.