HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w.P.(C) No.1o39/2o11 PETiTlONERS 1. Dr. Chandrakiran Saxena, Aged about 27 years, W/o Shri Amit Saxena, R/o MIG C/2, Seepat Road, Songanga Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Priyanka Singh, D/o Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o I-14, Shriram Nagar, Near T.V. Tower, Raipur, District Raipur (co) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1, State of Chattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Medicai Education, D.KIS. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. 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 Health Services, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, Through the Dean, Raipur (cs) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate forthe petitioners, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (23.02.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 w.P.(C) No.1o39I2011 Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counse‘ appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners appeared in the pre medical test (PMT) in the year 2002. After selection, they were given admission in MBBS Course in respondent Noi 5 College. Petitioner No.1 was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.40,000/- for the period from 17"“ of October, 2006 to 31$‘ of March 2010 and petitioner No.2 was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.75.000/- for the period from 18‘“ of October 2006 to 30‘“ of November 2000 for the reason that after obtaining the MBBS Degree, they will serve in the rural areas of Chhattisgarh State. Accordingly, both the petitioners furnished the bank guarantees After w. completion of their MBBS courses, the names of the petitioners were sent for giving appointment, but the concerned respondents did not issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners and a' long time elapsed. Thereafter, the bank guarantees were encashed by respondent Nor 5 and presently, the amount(s) in question are pending with respondent No5. Mrs Prateek Sharma submits that in similar writ petitions i.e. W,P.(C) No. 2731/2007, W.P.(C) No. 1986/2010, & W.P.(C) No.105/201 1, orders have been passed that the petitioners are entitled to x principle amount as also interest @ 6% per annum subject to verification of facts, He submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in above 3 writ petitions. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, fairly agrees that the issues involved in this writ petition is covered by the 3 orders passed by this Court in the above 3 writ petitions and the present writ petition can be disposed in terms of the orders passed in the said writ petitions. ln View of the above agreed submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of the orders passed in W.P.(C) No.2731/2007 on 04.09.2009, W.P.(C) No.1 986/2010 on 01 07.2010 & W.P.(C) No.105/2011 on 15.02.201 1. !.. No order as to cost(s). Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna