cgxxwA ® \N \AP qr \ wg‘ 6% IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(C) NOMZOé OF 2011 PETITIONER: /' Smita Tiwari, D/o- Shri K.P. Tiwari, Aged About- 29 Years, C/o- Shri A.K. Ojha, Ojha Niwas, Azad Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS § / RESPONDENT(S):1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Medical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary Department of Health Services, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /3. Director, Medical Education, Directorate Medical Education, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Director, Health Services, Directorate Heaith Services l Education, Raipur (C.G.) ,5. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, Through The Dean, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 15‘ day of August, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the Pre Medical Test (PMT) in the year 2002. After selection, she was given admission in M.B.B.S. course in the respondent College. The candidates were required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.75,000/— for the purpose of sewing in the rural areas of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner passed her MBBS examination completed the internship. Afterwards, the petitioner was never given appointment in rural areas. Thus, the petitioner requested for refund of the bank guarantee which is lying with the respondent college. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even after making various requests, the respondents have not refunded the amount of bank guarantee to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the facts of the instant petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2731 of 2007 (Satish Kumar Wasnik & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others)~on 04.09.2009 and the instant petition may be disposed of in the same terms. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4206 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smita Tiwari Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Learned counsel next submits that the pre-condition to deposit a bank guarantee was to give an employment to the petitioner, immediateiy after completion of the MBBS course. The petitioner has been making appiications and representations to appoint her in rural areas. However, no appointment was made and the State Government did not release the bank guarantee of Rs.75,000/— and the bank guarantee was encashed by the State. Thus, the petitioner has suffered loss on account of the conduct of the State Government and, as such, she is entitled to refund of the amount as well as interest on the amount of bank guarantee, as the same was unnecess‘arily retained by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the similar fact, the order was passed in Sat/sh Kumar Wasnik (supra). However, liberty may be reserved to the respondents/State to verify the facts asto whether they are similar to that of the present petition. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that instead of bond, the petitioner was directed to deposit bank guarantee of Rs.75,000/- before final examination of MBBS course and the petitioner was required to serve in the rural areas. But due to the laches and default on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner could not be sent for serving in rural areas. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to refund Rs.75,000/— to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of the facts. In view of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/_ i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2 @