Case: M. Sham Singh Vs. State of Mysore

suit against the appellant. It was, however, dismissed against the sureties. 6. There is hardly any merit or substance in the present appeal. The appellant appears to seek advantage from the fact that he had informed the Government of Mysore about his arrival on July 18, 1950 after completion of his studies at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. It has been contended on his behalf that as soon as this intimation was sent the appellant had performed his part of the contract and it was for the Government to offer him employment within six months. He stayed in Mysore till February 27, 1951 and the period of six months expired on January 18, 1951. He was not offered any employment and therefore in terms of Clause 3 of the bond the Government should be deemed to have waived the right to claim his services and he was at liberty thereafter to seek employment elsewhere. It is claimed that the letters which the appellant wrote to the Government asking for permission to go back to the United States for further studies without any financial assistance from the Government did not affect the legal position. The writing of such a letter and the reply sent by the Government agreeing to what had been proposed by the appellant were de hors the contract which stood discharged as soon as there was failure on the part of the Government to offer any employment within the period of six months of the intimation of the appellants return to India. 7. The High Court after considering all the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that when the appellant returned to Bangalore on July 6, 1950 he had not abandoned the idea of completing the course of training with the General Electric Company. He had come only because of the illness of his mother who died a little before his arrival. Although he had submitted a report to the State Government with regard to his arrived at Bangalore on July 18, 1950 his letter, dated November 27, 1950 was consistent with the original agreement which had already taken place between the parties that he should complete the course of training with the General Electric Company by staying for a period of one year at his own expense. It was observed by the High Court that the State Government having sent a scholar and having incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 35, 000/- for his training could not have refused his request for overstay for a period of one year particularly when such a stay did not entail any financial burden on the State Government. The High Court proceeded to say :"If under these circumstances, the State Government agreed to the request to extend the period of stay for one year and subsequently permitted defendant No. 1 to return to U.S.A. in pursuance of prior commitment under a mutual agreement, to complete his training, we have no doubt in holding that the request made by defendant No. 1 and granted by the plaintiff form one integral part of the contract, the performance of which by defendant No. 1 had been extended by mutual consent. It is regrettable that having secured the benefits of foreign technical education at the cost of the State exchequer, defendant No. 1 has been adopting an attitude in the suit, in utter disregard of his legal and moral obligations under the scholarship bond." 8. We find it difficult to understand and appreciate how the Government should be deemed to have waived the right to claim the services of the appellant in terms of Clause 3 of the bond when by mutual consent it had been agreed that the appellant could stay for one year after he had completed his study at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn for getting practical training with the General Electric Company. The High Court is quite right in saying that when the appellant came to Bangalore in July 1950 he did not do so for the purpose of staying at Bangalore and accepting any employment which might be offered to him. He had to come as he admitted in his own letters, on account of domestic reasons. He wanted to go back and finish that period of training with the General Electric Company. He sought permission in that behalf and was allowed to return to the United States for that purpose. We are unable to see how in these circumstances the Government was bound to offer him any employment within a period of six months from July 18, 1950. By writing the letter, dated November 27, 1950 the appellant had unequivocally indicated his desire to finish the training with the General Electric Company. He had made no suggestion and given no hint that he was waiting for the offer of any employment. The period of six months was to expire on January 18, 1951 whereas the letter, dated November 27, 1950 was written well before that date. The mere fact that he left after the expiry of the period of six months would not show that he had returned to Bangalore and was writing for any employment being offered to him within six months of his arrival in terms of the bond. It is significant that in the letter, dated November 27, 1950 he had reiterated his assurance that he would place his services at the disposal of the Government on his return provided a suitable position was available. This shows that he was fully conscious of what the true legal position was. Instead of returning to India the appellant chose to take up a job at San Francisco. Surely the Mysore Government had not expended all the amount in question on the studies of the appellant to enable him to seek employment on his own without first placing his services at the disposal of the Mysore Government which he was legally bound to do under the terms of the bond and the subsequent mutual agreement between the parties.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. There is hardly any merit or substance in the present appeal. The appellant appears to seek advantage from the fact that he had informed the Government of Mysore about his arrival on July 18, 1950 after completion of his studies at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. It has been contended on his behalf that as soon as this intimation was sent the appellant had performed his part of the contract and it was for the Government to offer him employment within six months. He stayed in Mysore till February 27, 1951 and the period of six months expired on January 18, 1951. He was not offered any employment and therefore in terms of Clause 3 of the bond the Government should be deemed to have waived the right to claim his services and he was at liberty thereafter to seek employment elsewhere. It is claimed that the letters which the appellant wrote to the Government asking for permission to go back to the United States for further studies without any financial assistance from the Government did not affect the legal position. The writing of such a letter and the reply sent by the Government agreeing to what had been proposed by the appellant were de hors the contract which stood discharged as soon as there was failure on the part of the Government to offer any employment within the period of six months of the intimation of the appellants return to India8. We find it difficult to understand and appreciate how the Government should be deemed to have waived the right to claim the services of the appellant in terms of Clause 3 of the bond when by mutual consent it had been agreed that the appellant could stay for one year after he had completed his study at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn for getting practical training with the General Electric Company. The High Court is quite right in saying that when the appellant came to Bangalore in July 1950 he did not do so for the purpose of staying at Bangalore and accepting any employment which might be offered to him. He had to come as he admitted in his own letters, on account of domestic reasons. He wanted to go back and finish that period of training with the General Electric Company. He sought permission in that behalf and was allowed to return to the United States for that purpose. We are unable to see how in these circumstances the Government was bound to offer him any employment within a period of six months from July 18, 1950. By writing the letter, dated November 27, 1950 the appellant had unequivocally indicated his desire to finish the training with the General Electric Company. He had made no suggestion and given no hint that he was waiting for the offer of any employment. The period of six months was to expire on January 18, 1951 whereas the letter, dated November 27, 1950 was written well before that date. The mere fact that he left after the expiry of the period of six months would not show that he had returned to Bangalore and was writing for any employment being offered to him within six months of his arrival in terms of the bond. It is significant that in the letter, dated November 27, 1950 he had reiterated his assurance that he would place his services at the disposal of the Government on his return provided a suitable position was available. This shows that he was fully conscious of what the true legal position was. Instead of returning to India the appellant chose to take up a job at San Francisco. Surely the Mysore Government had not expended all the amount in question on the studies of the appellant to enable him to seek employment on his own without first placing his services at the disposal of the Mysore Government which he was legally bound to do under the terms of the bond and the subsequent mutual agreement between the parties.