'£ C/^l^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C,G,1 No.M.OC)'^of 2011 PETITIONERS Dr. Rashmi Mohril, D/o Shri Dilip Mohril, aged about 30 years, R/o 1356 Amba Prasad Adarsh Chowk, Raja Talab, Raipur, District-Raipur Saiyyad Riyaz Anwar, aged 30 years, S/o Shri H.R. R/o 101756, Shivanand Nagar, Sector-I, Khamtarai, District-Raipur RESPONDENTS ^- ^^^.^p- '^- ^ ''..••^%^J-"' ...--" ^•^lb\?--" ^•y^'" ^--^' ^B.»*--'>»**- ^""'^ »i S.S.^ee^si*1 j »| 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Medical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary, Depa.rtment Services, D.K.S. Bhav. lealth. 7^-ir~ Director, Medical Education Directorate Medical Education, Director, Health Services Directorate Health Services, Raipur (C.G.) Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru MeiTtoriai Medical College, Raipur, through the Dean, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PET.ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA !\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON fONo. 4093 of2011 PETmONERS : Dr. Rashmi Mohril & Another. RE8PONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhatrisgarh & Others. WB1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Asnlhotri. J. Present: 2. Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advoeate General forthe State. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 28th day ofJuly, 2011) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners suhmits that the petitioners appeared in tfae Pre Medical Test (PMT) in the year 2001. After selection, they were given admission in M.B.B.S. course in the respondent No.5 College. The reserved candidates were required to fumish a bank guarantee of Rs. 75,000/- for the purpose of servmg in the rural areas offhe State ofChhattisgarh. The petitioners passed their MBBS examination completed their intemship. Afterwards, the petitioners were never given appointment in rural areas. Thus, the petitioners requested for refimd offhe bank guarantee which is lying with the respondent No. 5. Shri Shanna, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that even after making various requests, the respondents have not refanded the amount ofbank guarantee to the petitioners. He farther submits that the faets ofttie instant petition is squarely covered by the order passed by tiris Court in W.P.(C) No. 2731/2007 (Satish Kumar Wasnik & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on 04.09.2009 and Ihe mstant petition may be disposed of in the same 3. Sfari Sharma further subnrits that Ihe pre-condition to deposit a baak guarantee was to give an employment to fhe petitioners, immediately liiai .s& \ after completion of ttie MBBS course. The petitioners have been making applications and representations to appoint them in rural areas. However, no appointment was made and the State Govemment did not release tfae bank guarantee of Rs. 75,000/- and fhe bank guarantee was encashed by the State. Thus, fhe petitioners have suffered loss on account of the conduct of the State Govemment and as such, thev are entitled to refand ofthe amount as wsn as interest on the amount of bank guarantee, as the same was urmecessarily retained by the respondent authorities. 4. Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the similar tact, the order was passed in Satish Kuwmr {Vasnik (supra). However, liberty may be reserved to the respondents/State to veriiy the facts asto whether fhey are similar to that offhe preseat petition. 5. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that instead of bond, fhe petitioner was directed to deposit bamk guarantee of Rs. 75,000/- before final examination of MBBS course and fhe petitioners was required to serve in fhe rural areas. But due to the laches aad defautt on the part ofthe respondent aufhorities, the petitioners could not be sent for serving in rural areas. 6. In view ofthe above, the respondents are directed to refimd Rs. Rs. 75,0001- to fhe petitioners with interest at the rate of6% per annum, subjectto verification offhe facts. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- SATISH K. ANGWHOM Judge