IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W. P. (Q No?€&'2^ of 2011 PETITIONERS y 2. ^%5 RESPONDENTS /_ : 1 Deepak Prakash, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Paras Ram, R/o House No. 1266, Behind Aluminium Bhawan, Belgari Basti, Post-Balco, District-Korba (C.G.) Uttam Roshan Tigga, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri R. Tigga, R/o C/o Smt. Shobhan Tigga, Near Government College, Sitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) 3. Shrikant Chandrakar, aged about 28 years, S/o Shri Abhay Ram Chandrakar, R/o Block SA, Street- I, Sector-8, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) 4. VERSUS :1: 2: 3. 4.- Rekha Agrawal, aged about 27 years, D/o Shri Raniniwas Agrawal, R/o Om Traders, Banaras Road, Arabikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Medical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secrptary, Department of Health Services, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Medical Directorate Medical Raipur (C.G.) Education Education, 5. ^ Director, Health Ser^ices Directorate Health Ser^ices, Raipur (C.G.) Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, through the Dean, Raipur (C.G.) ^r^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA ^ .^ 1%^ "^a^ ^z^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fQ No. 2862 of2®ll PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS D^pak Prakash & OtfiCTS. VER8US State ofChhMti^arh & Otfaers. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon*Ne Shri Satish K. Afinttotei, J. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advwate forthe petNot3^rs. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel LawyerfortiieState/respondents. 08DERr08AL) (Passed on 30th day ofJune, 2011) 1. Leamed coiuisel appearing for th®pfi!ti1ion©rssulanite ttiat fhe petitionCTS ^ppearcd in tiie Pre Medical T©it(PMT) in fce year 2002. After selection, fhey WCT& giveir adtnission m M.B.B.S. course m tfae re^ondait No.5 College. The reserved candidates were required to fumidh a barik guaraaitee of Rs. ^OOO/- and the unreserved eandidates were required to faimsh a baiik gparaatee of Rs. 75,000/- for the puipose of senring in the niral areas <rf fhe State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners passed their MBBS exammation completed tfadr interasMp. Afterwaids, fbe p&tNoiaors were never ^ven appointment in rural ar^s. Thus, fhe petitioaa-s requested fw refund ofthe baiik guarairtee which Js lyii^ wtth the respondentNo.5. 2. Shri Shaima^ leamed e<mnsel appearmg fw the petiticmers submit that even after makitig various requests, fhe respond^nts have not refunded the aniount of bank guarantee to Ae petitioaers. He ftirther submits that tte facts of the mstant petitiaa is squardy covCTed by Ifae order passed by this Court in W.P<C) N@. 2731/2007 (Satish Kumar Wasnik & Others v. State cf Chhattisgarh & Others) on 04.09.2009 andtfae instant pet&ion may be disposed ofinthe same ternas. 3. Shri Sharma furtfaer submits fhat tfae pre-eondition to d^posit a barik guaiantee was to give an employa^ to fhe petittona"s, imniediately after completion oftlie MBB8 <x>urse. The pelilioners have been making applieations and repFeseirtations to appoint fhem in mral areas. However^ no appomtment was txiade aad fhe State § %"^s. 1 %SI? ^ Govemment did not release the baak guarantee ofRs. 40,000/- atid 75^000/- and the barik giiarairtee was CTicadhied by Ifae Stsrte. Tliu^ fhe petitioners have ^ififered loss on aecoyit ofthe eoiiduct ofllie State Govemment and as such, Aey are entitled to refimd oflfae amount as well as interest on fhe amount dTbaak gyaiwite^ as the same was uimecessarily retained bythe respondent airifaorities. Shri Shashank Thakur, leamed Panel Law^er appearifl®for the State/respondents subnaits fhat in (he similar fact, the order was passed m Satish Kumar Wasnik (supra). However^ lit^rty may be reserved to the respotMients/State to verify the facts asto wlwfeer they are similar to tfaat ofthe present petiticm. Having heard leamed coumdl qpp^ring far the parties^ it is evident fhat instead ofbond, the petNoaer was directed te deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 75,0@0/- before final exaniination of MBBS course and the petittonens was required to serve in the rural areas. But due to fhe laehes and d^fault on tiie part oflfae respondent authorities, fhe petitiQaers could not be sent for serving in rural areas. bi view ofthe above, Ifae respondents are direGted to refund Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 to 3, and Rs. 75,000/- to Itae petitioner No. 4, witfa urterest at fhe rate of6%paraiu»un,suibject to va'ification oflfae facts. In view ofthe foregoiag, fhe petition stands dispased of. No order asto costs, Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge Axnit