°-!Sk. 'L^OJ •^r.-y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Services Services, W.P.(C1 No.1197 of 2011 Dr. Nishant Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Dr. Uday Shankar, R/o C/o Dr. Uday Shankar Central Hospital, Burhar, P.0. -Dhanpuri, District- Shahdol (M.P.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Medical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 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 Directorate Health Raipur (C.G.) 5 Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, through theDean, Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (04.03.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner appeared in the pre medical test (PMT) in the year 2002. After selection he was given admission in MBBS Course in respondentNo. 5 College. Petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 75,000/- for the period from 17.10.2006 to 31.03.2010 W.P.fCTNo.l 197 of2011 for the reason that after obtaining the MBBS Degree, he will serve in the Rural Areas of Chhattisgarh State. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the bank guarantee. After completion of his MBBS course, the name of the petitioner was sent for giving appointment, but the concerned respondents did not issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and a long time elapsed. Thereafter, the bank guarantee was encashed by respondent no. 5 and presently, the amount in question is pending with respondent No.5. Mr. Prateek Sharma submits that in similar writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1986/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2731/2007 and W.P.(C) No. 105/2011, orders have been passed that the petitioner is entitled to 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 of above 3 writ petitions. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned panel la\wyer appearing on behalf of the State, fairly agrees that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the three 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. In view of the above agreed submissions made by learned counsel forthe parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 2731/2007an 4.9.2009, W.P.(C) No. 1986/2010 on 1.7.201 OandW.P.(C)No. 105/2011 on 15.2.2011. No order as to costs. SaEuKnmarsiaha Judge •>!^ Iffl'