BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018- THE MATTER OF: DR. MD NAJIM & ORS s+ PETITIONERS DEAN, ESI PGIMSR, BASAIDARAPUR & ORS -sRESPONDENTS INDEX PARTICULARS 1. [Notice of Motion 2. 2 3 | 3 Memo of Parties “a-7 “3, | List of Dates & Synopsis rs es 6. | Writ Petition under Article 236 of the Constitution Of] 13-55 | India on behalf of the Petitioners praying for: of Certiorari quashing the ation dated 06.02.2017 of | Respondent no. 1 on the ground raised in the writ petition; and 2. A Writ of Quo Werranto or any other such Writ quashing the calling upon the Respondents as to under what authority sre they demanding Rs. 2,50,000/- as increased fee from the Petitioners; 3. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the illegal, unjust and baseless act of Respondents in demanding the exorbitant fee of Rs. 2,50,000/- per Petitioner per annum; and of Certiorari quashing the Show Cause 2 dated 10.01.2019, issued by the Respondent no. 1 threatening termination of the PG course; 5. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other such Writ quashing the act of Respondents in A canesperiod of 3 years as unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary and without having any nexus to any purported objective; and 6. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other such Writ quashing the act of the Respondent no. 1 in obtaining undertakings of bonded services for an unreasonable period of 3 years and secured by huge amount of rs. 25,00,000/- which is baseless and devoid of any nexus; and 7. A Writ of Cestiorari praying for a quashing of | circular dated 10.10.2018 demanding Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-; and or any other appropriate writ this Hon'ble court may deem fit with supporting affidavit obtaining bonded service by the Petitioner for a 7. | ANNEXURE P-1 56-58 | |A-copy of the impugned letter dated 06.02.2017 ‘bearing No. DM(A) H-19/14/9/PG Admission/ 2017- PGISMR issued by Respondent No. 1 8. | ANNEXURE P— IL 59-61 | A copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 10.01.2019 ANNEXURE P — It - 62-66 A copy of the proforma of impugned bond provided by the Respondent No. 1 10. | ANNEXURE P —1V 67 | A-copy of the impugiied Circular dated 10.10.2018 pa ee 11. | ANNEXURE P—V ; 8-2 A copy of the results for the year 2016 ~ 17 for All India as well as State Quota “12, ANNEXURE P— VI a 3-90 A copy of Webpage reflecting the information of online counseling (All India Quota) for the year 2017 for the Respondent No. 1 13. | ANNEXURE P— Vi ~ 91-95 A notification bearing GGSIPU Admissions/2017/ 20825 (State Quota) for State Quota Students 14. ANNEXURE P= VIII (Colly) 96 =99 A copy of Webpage reflecting the information of online counseling for the year 2017 other institutes affiliated with Respondent No. 515. [ANNEXURE P-IX 100— tis A copy of the relevant portions of the brochure alongwith the bond imposed by the Respondent No. 5 ANNEXURE P—X . 116-118 A copy of the communication dated 27.07.2018 issued by the Petitioner 17. ANNEXURE P—XI 119 122 A copy of the communication dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Petitioner 18.ANNEXUREP-XI 123 A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 19.06.2018 bearing No. L ~ 11 /12/3/2018/Corporate Cell MEC 19.| Application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure 124-13] Code, 1908 filed by the Petitioner praying for appropriate directions and stay of operation of the freular dated 10.10.2018 alongwith supporting, 77 affidavit 20. | Application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 filed by the Petitioner praying for sppropriate directions and stay of operation of the ‘Show Cause Notice dated 10.01.2019 21. | Application under Section 151 GPC, on behalf of | the Petitioners for exemption from filing certified ‘opy of annexures, the true typed copy of, —illegible/dim/proper margin / underline / single line spacing of the anmexures alongwith supporting affidavit. 22.| Vakalatnama f LeHer h e - ¢ oh fran — Lisa =1 KAQIKA AGNIHOTRI VAIBHAV AGNIHOTRI SKV ASSOCIATES A118, THIRD FLOOR Place: New Delhi DEFENCE COLONY Dated: NEW DELHI ~ 1100242015-17 2017 Cc (an 2017-18 7 10.10.2018 LIST OF DATES ‘The fee for Student Doctors pursuing various Post Graduate Courses with the Respondent No. 1 was Rs. 24,000/-. The Petitioners participated in respective examinations of State and All India Quota and after following the procedure took admissions with the Respondent No. 1 It is relevant to note that the purported decision of increasing fees was communicated to the Petitioners only at the time of counselling, Tt is also relevant to note that the Petitioners were required to furnish a bond for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- as security which becomes payable in case the Student Doctors decide to not serve with the Respondent No. 1 upon completion of course. The Petitioners had been following up with the Respondent No. 1 and 2 calling upon them to reconsider the revised fees, The Petitioners ssued communications dated 27.07.2018 and 28.08.2018 sharing their concems regarding, the revised fees and the onerous bond condition. ‘The Respondent No. 1 on 10.10.2018 has issued an illegal and arbitrary circular seeking to circumvent the litigation in order to make illegal gains. Vide the said circular the Petitioners inter-alia are being directed to furnish a Bankj | | | Guarantee for a humungous amount of Rs,10,00,000/ by 22.10.2018 Hence this Writ Petition SYNOPSIS The present Writ Petition is being fled on behalf of Petitioners who are currently studying in various Post Graduate Courses in the Respondent No. 1 institute, seeking appropriate Writ thereby quashing following arbitrary and illegal actions of the Respondents: 1. The Petitioners are impayning the decision dated 06.02.2017 bearing No. DM(A) H-19/14/9/PG Aduission/ 2017-PGISMR issued by Respondent No. I to Ministry of Health @ Family Welfare whereby the fee for the courses punsued by the Petitioncrs has been Srponentisily and unjustly increased, which ia arbitrary, Mnreasonable and without the authority of law. It ig submitted that fees fixed for the immediate prior batches ies 2015-18 and 2016-19 was fixed at Rs, 24,000/- per student per annum, Whereas during the counseling, the Petitioners, without any prior intimation, were informed that the fees forthe batch 2017.20 is fixed at Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is relevant to note that the fee fixed for Petitioners batch (2017-20) is ereste than ten times ofthe fee fixed, Wis also relevant to note that the alleged decision which finds mention in the impugned letter has not been made available to the Petitioners,Itis also the case of the Petitioners that the fees for the 2017-20 batch has not been increased in accordance with the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee Regulation of Admission Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensures Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 (Fee Fixation Act), which provides for fixed time period for operation of fee structure and procedure for approval thereof from the Fee Regulatory Committee (Respondent No. 3) established under the Fee Fixation Act. Without prejudice to the aforementioned, assuming, albeit not admitting that the fee structure has been arrived at as per the procedure laid down under the Fee Fixation Act, even in such a case, the decision dated 06.02.2017 is without any rationale and as such same merits to be declared as illegal and unsustainable. 1 of unreasonable Despite the Petitioners having raised the i inerease in fees with the Respondent No, 1 and 2, it has failed to provide any relief or reasoning behind its arbitrary actions. Instead the Petitioners have been threatened with termination of their courses. ‘The Petitioners are also seeking to quash the show cause notice dated 10.01.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 threatening the termination of the PG Course for non-payment of fees. 10The Petitioners are also aggrieved by the requirement to submit a bond which imposes an onerous condition of mandatory service for a period of 3 years in any Hospitals of the Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that, in case of the Petitioners failure to comply with the said onerous and illegal condition, the Petitioners would be required to pay a penalty of an excessive amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. It is relevant to note that the aforementioned bond condition is in addition to the compulsory Bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- provided along with the Brochure. The fuctum of bond conditions contained being onerous, illegal is established from the following i. The condition imposed is onerous and requires the students to give ‘an undertaking to work at any place assigned by the Respondent No. 1 for a period of “Three Years”; ii, No information pertaining to the probable place of appointment is provided especially with respect to the location of the institute or the nature of the appointment where the Petitioners would be directed to serve; iii, No information pertaining to the nature of appointment is provided, which may lead to the appointment of the Petitioners in “Non-teaching or lesser positions”; iv. The condition being onerous having been secured by the payment OF Rs. 25,00,000/-, the Petitioners would be compelled to accept the appointment given by Respondent No, 1. The said appointment is also without any assurance of remuneration, which would be paid to the Petitioners; ilv. Lack of such condition in other institutes providing same courses which affiliated with the Respondent No. 5 herein; vi, Respondent No. 2 in a statement issued to the media on 16.02.2015, had on its own communicated the rejection of imposition of any such condition by the Respondent No. 1; Vii. The inaetion and failure of the Respondent, in not even examining let alone redressing the issue raised by the Petitioners; The bonds submitted by the Petitioners are in the custody of the Respondent No. 1 and 2. ‘The Petitioners are also seeking relief of mandamus quashing the ular dated 10.10.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 1, whereby ied condition for a’ Bank it seeks to retrospectively apply the mod Guarantee from the Petitioners, in lieu of the Bond Condition, his is violation of the right of the Petitioners to Equal Opportunity, Occupation, and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 14,19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and Praying for the Writ of Mandamus and any such other Writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 12BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018 1410-2019 IN THE MATTER O1 DR. MD NAJIM & :* ORS +» PETITIONERS, VERSUS. DEAN, ESI PGIMSR, BASAIDARAPUR & ORS. +-RESPONDENTS: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS PRAYING FOR: 1. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE DECISION DATED 06.02.2017 OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 ON THE GROUND RAISED IN THE WRIT PETITION; AND 2. A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO OR ANY OTHER. SUCH WRIT QUASHING THE CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS AS TO UNDER WHAT. AUTHORITY ARE THEY DEMANDING RS. 2,50,000/- AS INCREASED FEE FROM THE PETITIONER; 3. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND BASELESS ACT RESPONDENTS — IN DEMANDING THE EXORBITANT FEE OF RS. 2,50,000/- PER PETITIONER PER ANNUM; AND 4. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING) THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED~ 10.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 THREATENING TERMINATON OF THE PG COURSE; 5. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUCH WRIT QUASHING THE ACT 13OF RESPONDENTS IN OBTAINING BONDED SERVICE BY THE PETITIONER FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AS UNREASONABLE, ILLEGAL. AND ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT HAVING ANY NEXUS TO ANY PURPORTED OBJECTIVE; AND 6. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER SUCH WRIT QUASHING THE ACT OF THE RESPONDENT NO. | IN OBTAINING UNDERTAKINGS OF BONDED SERVICES FOR AN UNREASONABLE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. AND SECURED BY HUGE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000/- WHICH IS BASELESS AND DEVOID OF ANY NEXUS; AND. 7. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI PRAYING FOR A QUASHING OF CIRCULAR DATED 10.10.2018 DEMANDING BANK GUARANTEE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/-, AND OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT To, ‘The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the High Court of Dethi at New Delhi MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. The present Writ Petition is heing filed on behalf of Petitioners who are currently studying in various Post, Graduate Courses in the Respondent No. 1 institute, seeking appropriate Writ thereby quashing following arbitrary and illegal aetions of the Respondents: 1.1, The Petitioners are impugning the decision dated 06.02.2017 bearing No. DM(A) H-19/14/9/PG 1412. Admission/ 2017-PGISMR issued by Respondent No. 1 to Ministry of Health & Family Welfare whereby the fee for the courses pursued by the Petitioners has been exponentially and unjustly inereased, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and without the authority of law. It ig submitted that fees fixed for the immediate prior batches ic. 2015-18 and 2016-19 was fixed at Rs. 24,000/- per student per annum, Whereas during the counseling, the Petitioners, without any prior intimation, were informed that the fees for the batch 2017-20 is fixed at Rs, 2,50,000/.. It is relevant to note that the fee fixed for Petitioners batch (2017-20) is greater than ten times of the fee fixed. A copy of the impugned lotter dated 06.02.2017 bearing No. DM(A) He 19/14/9/PG_Admission/ 2017-PGISMR issued by Respondent No, 1 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~ I. It is also relevant to note that the alleged decision whieh finds mention in the impugned letter has not been made available to the Petitioners, Itis also the case of the Petitioners that the fees for the 2017-20 batch has not been increased in nal Colleges or accordance with the Delhi Profe: 15Institutions__(Prohibition _of Capitation _ Fee Regulation of Admission _Fix: m of _Non- Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensures Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 (Pee Fixation Act), which provides for fixed time period for operation of fee structure and procedure for approval thereof from the Fee Regulatory Committee (Respondent No. 3) established under the Fee Fixation Act, Without prejudice to the aforementioned, assuming, albeit not admitting that the fee structure has been arrived at as per the procedure laid down under the Fee Fixation Act, even in such a case, the decision dated 06.02.2017 is without any rationale and as such same merits to be declared as illegal and unsustainable. Despite the Petitioners having raised the issue of unreasonable increase in fees with the Respondent No. 1 and 2, it has failed to provide any relief or reasoning behind. its arbitrary actions. Instead the Petitioners have been threatened with termination ioners are also secking to of their courses. The Pet quash the show cause notice dated 10.01.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 threatening the termination of the PG Course for non-payment of 1614, ii, fees. A copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 10.01.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~IT. ‘The Petitioners are also aggrieved by the requirement to submit a bond which imposes an onerous condition of mandatory service for a period of 3 years in any Hospitals of the Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that, in case of the Petitioners failure to comply with the said onerous and illegal condition, the Petitioners ‘would be required fo pay a penulty of an excessive amount of Rs, 25,00,000/-. It is relevant 10 note that the aforementioned bond condition is in addition to the compulsory Bond of Rs, 3,00,000/- provided along with the Brochure, The factum of bond conditions contained being onerous, illegal established from the following: The condition imposed is onerous and requires the students to give an undertaking to work at any place assigned by the Respondent No. 1 for a period of “Three.Years”; No information pertaininy: to the probable place of appointment is provided especially with respect to the location of the institute or the nature of the appointment where the Petitioners would be directed to serve: 7iii. No information pertaining to the nature of appointment is provided, which may lead to the appointment of the Petitioners in “Non-tesehing or lesser positions”; iv. The condition being onerous having been secured by the payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the Petitioners would be compelled to accept the appointment given by Respoudent No. 1. The said appointment is also without any assurance of remuneration, which would be paid to the Petitioners; v. Lack of such condition in other institutes providing same courses which affiliated with the Respondent No, 5 herein; vi. Respondent No. 2 in a statement issued to the media on 16.02.2015, had on its own communicated the rejection of imposition of any such condition by the Respondent No. 1; vii. The inaction and failure of the Respondent, in not even examining let alone redressing the issue raised by the Petitioners; ‘The bonds submitted by the Petitioners are in the custody of the Respandent No. | and 2. A copy of the proforma of impugned bond provided by the Respondent No. 1 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~ IIT. 181s. 2. The Petitioners are also seeking relief of mandamus quashing the Circular dated 10.10.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 1, whereby it seeks to retrospectively apply the modified condition for a Bank Guarantee from the Petitioners, in lieu of the Bond Condition. A copy of the impugned Circular dated 10.10.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~ LY. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned actions of the Respondents in exponentially increasing fees towards the course, obtaining onerous bond condition and attempting to obtain Bank Guarantee and the failure of the Respondents. in addressing grievances raised. by the Petitioners, are not only blatantly illegal, high handed and arbitrary but also an exploitation of the superior dominant position enjoyed by the Respondent No. 1, which left the Petitioners with no choice but to approach this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioners. are...students pursuing various Specialty Courses, who are enrolled with the Respondent No. 1 through Common Pntrance Exams (CET) 2017-18 conducted by GGSIPU and All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination NEET PG 2016-17 conducted by NBE 194, The Respondent No. 1 is PSI PGIMSR, Basaidarapur is an unaided / self-financing, institution established by the Labour Ministry and is affiliated with Respondent No. 5 (GGSIPU) offering. various PGMC Courses. The Respondent No. 2 is te parent body of the Respondent No. 1 and is responsible for the day to day functioning of the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 3 is the Fee Repulutory Committee established under the Fee Fixation Act. The Respondent No. 4 is the Nodal Officer, Ministry of, Labour and Employment and is responsible for implementation and change ol policies. The Respondent No. 5 is Guru Gobind Sinyl Indraprasth University (GGSIPU) is a jublic state university located in Dethi to which Respondent No, 1 is affiliated, The Respondent No. 6 is a Government body established under the tudian Medical Council Act, 1933 (repealed / freshly cnacicd) with de main function of establishing uniform standards of higher qualifications in medicine and seco. .iton of medical qualifications in India and aloud, ‘The Respondent No. 1 to 5 are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India aud by virtue of the same are amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 205 SA 52 53 The factual matrix leading to the present Petition being filed before this Hon'ble Court is: ‘The Petitioners after graduating M.B.B.S from Institutes affiliated with various recognized Universities, and have completed 1 year compulsory rotatory internship, and thus were entitled to appear in the All India Bost Graduate Medical Entrance Examination NEET PG 2017 conducted by NBE. The Petitioners in accordance with the rules and guidelines provided for the examinations applied and appeared in the same. That the Petitioners cleared the respective examinations. A copy of the results for the year 2016 — 17 for Alll India as well as State Quota are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P -v. ‘That thereafter, the Petitioners belonging to All India Quota were required to participate in online counseling as per Guidelines provided in Information Bulletin issued by National Board of Examination (NBE) in terms of the Information Bulletin, Subsequent to which the Petitioners were required to partake in online counseling and select ‘the desired institutes. Bach institute would share its details in a particular format disclosing relevant 2155 details which includes fees payable towards the course. It is submitted that the relevant webpage pertaining to the Respondent No. 1 is no more available on the website and therefore the Petitioners are relying upon the 2018 webpage. A copy of Webpage reflecting the information of online counseling (All India Quota) for the year 2018 for the Respondent No. | is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~~ VI Whereas, the Petitioners belonging to State Quota were required to attend counseling 2s provided in the notifications bearing the notification bearing, GGSIPU Admissions/2017/20825, It is relevant to note that no information pertaining to any increase in fees was provided on the website or during the first counseling session. A notification bearing GGSIPU Admissions/2017/20825 (State Quota) are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE. P-VIL 7 It is relevant to note that most institutes affiliated with Respondent No. 5 at the time had no bond condition, and some which had, imposed a bond condition of under Rs. 5,00,000/-, on the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 being a public institute under Respondent No. | is claiming a bond amount 225.6 5] of Rs. 25,00,000/.. A copy of Webpage reflecting the information of online counseling for the year 2017 other institutes affiliated with Respondent No. 5 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P— VII (COLLY). However to the shock and surprise of the Petitioners, when the process of application was joners belonging to already underway and the P State Quota, appeared for counseling, the Petitioners were informed that the Kees towards the course for the State Quota has been increased to 2,50,000/-p.e.. Furthermore, only when the Petitioner belonging to All India Quota undertook the online counseling it came to light that for the fees for All India Quota has also been increased to Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is relevant to note that the fee for the earlier batches of ESI, Basaidpur was only Rs. 24,000/-On asking for the basis of the said increase, the concemed official would not provide any relevant information but kept emphasizing that the Student Doctors would not be permitted to complete admission process until they pay 50% of the fees. In addition to this the Petitioners were called upon to furnish a bond compulsorily requiring the “\ ~ 2358 Petitioners to serve as resident with any Hospital deemed fit by the Respondent No. 1 for a period of 3 years. As per the conditions stipulated in the bond, the Petitioners, in an event of failure to comply with bond conditions, were required to pay an exorbitant penalty of Rs. 25,00,000-, It is pertinent to bring to the attention of this Hon’ble Court that this bond is in addition to the bond condition for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed by the Respondent No. 5 which would become payable in case of failure of concemed students complete the respective courses opted by the Petitioners. A copy of the relevant portions of the brochure alongwith the bond imposed by the Respondent No. 5 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~ IX (COLLY). It is also surprising that as per the knowledge of the Petitioners some of the other institutes under Respondent No. 5 did not mandate the bonded service condition and the fee structure fixed did not exceed Rs. 50,000/;, However, on account of the fact that the counseling process had already closed, the only options left to the Petitioners were to either join the Respondent No. 1 institute as per the conditions imposed by them or to waste the next Not having left with any choice, the Petitioners39 5.10 were compelled to comply with the onerous condition of fumishing Rs. 1,25,000/- per semester towards Fees and a bond for a value of Rs. 25,00,000/- That the Petitioners made requests and inquiries from the Respondents regarding the arbitrary increase in fees, but to no avail. The Petitioners have however come in possession of a letter dated 06.02.2017 beating No, DM(A) H-19/14/9/PG ‘Admission/ 2017-PGISMR issued by Respondent No. 1 to Ministry of Health & Family Welfare thereby informing it of the purported decision taken by the Respondent No. 2 regarding revision of tuition fees and duration of compulsory service under bond. The said letter did not provide the decision, if any, taken by the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the said letter does not deal with the issue of State Quota students, who not be required to refer the website mentioned in the said letter, Thus being an internal communication it cannot be relied upon to claim exorbitant fees from the Petitioners, It is further submitted that imposition of exorbitant bond condition and the’ period of compulsory service is devoid of any rationale. It is also 25SAL pertinent to note that though the Respondent No. 1 has imposed an exorbitant and onerous condition on the Petitioners, it fails to provide any clarity on the nature of appointinent and rules pertaining thereto. While compelling the Petitioners to undertake to serve long periods on threat of imposition of enormous penalties, the Petitioners have neither been informed about the place of work nor the institute where the Petitioners would be required to undertake the said service, Further, no informution pertaining to the nature of service or remunerations payable have been divulged to the Pei On account of the fet that no clarity has been provided with respect to nature of the employment, the Petitioners who are post graduates, apprehend that they may be appointed to non-teaching positions or other lesser positions. Furthermore, time the Petitioners would spend on such post would not be counted in case the Petitioners application for professorship / teaching post which would further cause prejudice to the Petitioners. ‘The Petitioners naturally would not be in a position to reject the offer of employment as the same ‘would entail a heavy penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 265.13 The Petitioners have also leant that the 5.14 Respondent No. I has vacant positions for which the Student Doctors are eligible. However the Respondent No. 1 is not permitting the Student Doctors to even interview for the said position, unless they furnish the bond / Bank Guarantee demanded by the Respondent No. 1. It is most respectfully submitted that, while on one hand, the Petitioners are restricted from applying to any other Hospital, on the other hand, the Petitioners are not even permitted to apply to institute of their choice, even out of the choices available under Respondent No. 2. On account of the Respondent No.1’s failure to provide clatification to the aforementioned issues (fee structure and bond condition), the Petitioners addressed communication dated 27.07.2018, issued to the Respondent No. 1, sharing thgir issues and grievances with the Respondent No, 1. The Potiiones in the hope. that the grievances of the Petitioners would be examined and redressed waited patiently thereafter. A copy of the communication dated 27.07.2018 issued by the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P ~ X. However, as the Respondents 275.18 5.16 failed to provide any response, the Petitioners were compelled to issue another letter dated 28.08,2018 to the Respondent No. 1 recapitulating the Brievances of the Petitioners. It is submitted that the Respondent No, 1 has till date failed to respond {o cither of the aforementioned communications. A copy of the communication dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P — XI. ‘The Respondents instead of addressing the grievance of the Petitioner Students, on 10.10.2018, issued an illegal and arbitrary circular seeking to circumvent the litigation in order to make illegal gains. Vide the said Circular the Petitioners inter-alia were being directed to furnish @ Bank Guarantee for a humungous amount of Rs,10,00,000/- by 22.10.2018. Briefly stating the said action of the Respondent No, 1 and 2 is to the specific detriment of the Petitioners and merits 10 be quashed / stayed for the following, reasons: It is relevant to state that as per the Respondent No. 1, the Circular dated 10.10.2018 has been issued in furtherance of the Office Memorandum dated 19.06.2018. A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 19.06.2018 bearing No. L 2811 /12/5/2018/Corporate Cell/ MEC is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P — XU, 5.17, Tt seems from the letter that on 29.05.2018, in its 174th meeting the ESI Corporation had approved its decision to demand a Bank Guarantee of various amount totaling to Rs, 25,00,000/- by the PG students. This approval of the Respondent No. 2 was allegedly conveyed to Respondent No. 1 vide its circular dated 19.06.2018. From a bare perusal of the Office Memorandum it is apparent that the same could not have been made applicable to Petitioners as: i, It was applicable to PG Students taking admission who were required to furnish the Bank Guarantee in stages (Ist Year 05 Lacs, 2nd Year 10 Lacs, 3rd Year — 10 Lacs), Hence the same was prospective in nature and could not have been made applicable to students already studying with the Respondent No. 1; ji, Even otherwise, the Circular was issued on 10.10.2018 when the courses of Petitioners were already underway and the Petitioners were already studying the courses. Hence the modification of rules could not be imposed retrospectively;5.18 5.19) It is therefore submitted that the act of the Respondent to retrospectively apply the condition. of furnishing Bank Guarantee on- the Student Doctors from the 2017-20 batch is il gal and arbitrary. ‘The aforementioned decision of the Respondents is another instance of its high-handedness and abuse of its dominant position. While the Respondent No, 1 has failed to remedy the grievances raised by the Petitioners, the situation across the nation has changed drastically. Several institutes have admitted the fact that the period of several years as condition to serve is too ong and have reduced it. The Petitioners have also learnt that some of the institutes which initially proposed to impose heavy bond conditions have subsequently reduced the bond petiod to only six months. Hence, the Respondent No. 2 ought to take note of the changes and that its policies are violative of rights of the Petitioners. Its relevant to state that the Petitioners go through Jong working hours in the Respondent No. 1 Hospital, often working at odd hours for days at end, In the course of time spent pursuing the 305.22 course, the Petitioners have been approaching the Respondents calling upon them to clarify the rationale behind increase in the exponential fees imposition of bond and the nature of compulsory employment for a duration of 3 years. However no clarification was provided to either of the grievances raised by the Petitioners Its the case of the Petitioners that the increase in fees for the Petitioners’ batch is without any authority, prior intimation and in violation of applicable rules and provisiuus. It is submitted that before revision in fees, an aided institute is required to submit a “proposed fee structure” to the “fee regulatory committee” established under the Fee Fixation Act. Under the Act, each institution is required to provide all relevant documents, books of accounts for scrutiny prior to December 31* of the previous academic year. Upon perusal of the said proposed fee structure the Respondent No. 3 is under an obligation to verify if the proposed fee is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee, 315.23, Upon consideration of the, factors provided in the Act, if the proposed fee structure i8 found to be accurate, the Fee Regulatory Committee shall approve the proposed fee structure which shall be valid for a period of 3 years, It is relevant to note that despite the fixed validity period of 3 years, the Respondent No. 1 has increased the fees for the 2018-21 batch by another 10%, Further the Respondent No. 1 and 2 are threatening the Petitioners with termination of the courses pursued them. 6. Aggrieved by the blatant illegelities committed by the Respondents, coupled with the arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational increase in fees and imposition of exorbitantly onerous bond conditions and the inaction of the Respondents to rectify the arievences, the Petitioners herein impugn the said actions by way of the present Petition on the followings grounds, all of which are independent and without prejudice to each other :- GROUNDS 6.1. BECAUSE the Petitioners were never informed about the 1000% increase in the fee for the courses offered by Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the impugned increase in fee structure neither6.2. reflected in the brochure nor on the website of the Respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. The Petitioners belonging to State Quota were informed for the first time about the increase in fee hike at the time of counseling. Even the Petitioners belonging to All India Quota were not aware of the revised fee. Hence, the said structure cannot be changed on the basis of any alleged decision, when the same was not duly made available to the prospective students at the relevant period of time; BECAUSK the impupned decision dated 06.02.2017, whereby the Respondent No. 1 has exponentially increased the fees for the Petitioners batch, is erroneous and merits to be set aside, as the same is without any authority. It is submitted that under Fee Fixation Act an aided institute is required to submit a “proposed fee structure” to the “fee regulatory committee” established under the Fee Fixation Act. Alongwith the proposed fee structure ull relevant documents, books of accounts for scrutiny prior to December 31" of the previous academic year are required to be submitted. ‘Thereafter the Respondent No. 3 is required to verify if the proposed fee is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging of capitation fee, 3363 64, BECAUSE it is not permissible for the Respondents to change the rules of procedure Which were available and-known to the parties at the time when the Petitioners applied for the selection process; BECAUSE the impugned decision dated 06.02.2017 is erroneous and merits to be set aside, as the same reveals the high handed nature of the Respondent No. 1 and 2, in as much as it violates the right of the Petitioners to access professional education at a reasonable fee structure, Ik is submitted that the link between private freedom and public interest determines the nature of permissible controls that can be enforced by the State. It is relevant to note that the fee for the previous batch was Rs. 24,000-/ p.a., however, the Respondent No, 1 and 2 has increased the same to Rs, 2,50,000/-. It is submitted that tll date the mn and the basis of which the same has actual deci been taken, has not been made available to the Petitioners, Furthermore the Petitioners have not been informed the basis or rationale for a 1000% increase in the fee hike; 34.6.5. 6.6, BECAUSE the impugned decision dated 06.02.2017, is erroneous and merits to be set aside, as the same has been passed in violation of the basic obligations which follow from right to administration / occupation. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held that the tight to administration of a private unaided educational institution assumes the right to admit students, to set up a reasonable fee structure, to coristitute a goveming body, and to appoint staff and take disciplinary. action, Ik is submitted that the autonomy granted to educational institutions in the admission of students i.e, the private right to administer-must be seen in the context of the public purpose. The State in exercise of its power and to preserve public interest have cast certain restrictions on the power of the institutes to fix their fees. Thus the fee structure determined by Respondent No. 1 and 2, which has been revised without eny authority, is not and cannot escape any regulation and as such merits to be quashed; BECAUSE the impugned decision is erroneous and merits to be set aside as the same is in contravention of the Fee. Fixation Act. It is submitted that every institution is fuze to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that 3567. 68, there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly, or in any form. It is relevant to note that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have unilaterally increased the fee for the Petitioner batch over ten folds, which cannot be Justified as a reasonable increase in fee by-any standards, The stid act can only be understood as evidence of the Respondents intention to profiteer from the Petitioners; BRCAUSE the impugned decision dated 06.02.2017 is erroneous and merits to be set aside as the same is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, wherein it had been held that insofar as professional courses leading to degrees in Medicine and Engineering are concemed, the matter must be screened and assessed by Committee on Fixation of Fee. The Apex Court further held that such institutes are not entitled and competent to devise its own fee structure, and referred the matter to the Fee Fixation Committee. BECAUSE the impugned decision dated 06.02.2017 is erroneous and merits to be set aside as the same is in contravention of the object of setting up an educational institution, which is by definition "charitable". It is clear that an 3669. educational institution cannot charge such a fee as is not required ‘for the purpose of fulfilling that object. To put it differently, in the establishment and running of an educational institution, the object should not be to make a profit at the cost of Students, inasmuch as education is. essentially charitable in nature. BECAUSE even the subsequent conduct of the Respondent No, 1 and 2 in revising the fee structure for the batch of 2017-20 is illegal, withont any authority and metits to be set aside. It is submitted that under the Fee Fixation Act fees once fixed should not ordinarily be changed for a period of three years, unless there exists extra- ordinary reason. It is no more res integra that and exploitation is not permissible and the educational institutions are supposed to run on ‘no profit, no loss basis’. However the Respondent No. ! and 2 have revised the fee structure for 2 emsecntive years, making it apparent that the same has been done for profiteering. Further the Respondent No. 1 is threatening action against the Petitioners and other Student Doctors for non-payment of the fees. The same also makes it apparent that the said fee 376.10. 6.1. 6.12. 6.13. increase for the years 2017-20 and 2018-21 is without any authority; BECAUSE the impugned decision of the Respondent No. | and 2 whereby the fees had been increased is merely an executive order which cannot be in contravention of the applicable statutes and the settled principles of law; BECAUSE the unfathomable increase in the fee being demanded by the Respondents is devoid of any objective or aim or explanation in support of the same, Hence, the same merits to be set aside; BECAUSE the 1000% increase in the fee cannot have any reasonable cannot be said to have any reasonable and rational nexus with auy object that the Respondents purportedly seeks to achieve; BECAUSE the impugned Notice dated 10.01.2019 is bad in law as the Respondents have failed to consider the issue already raised by the Petitioners in its letters dated 27.07.2018 and 28.08.2018, It is submitted that as the Petitioners have raised the said issue more than 6 months prior to the impugned communication it does not ‘lie with the 386.14, 6.15, 6.16, Respondents to threaten the Petitioners with termination of the course on the same issue; BECAUSE the impugned actions of the Respondents in obtaining the bond is in teeth of Section 27 of the Contract Act. It is Submitted that by virtue of the bond obtained from the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 1 seeks to compel the Petitioners to serve them for a period of 3 years, failing which, an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- would be recovered from the Petitioners. The aforementioned being in violation of the provisions of Contract Law merits to be set asides BECAUSE, without prejudice to the above submissions, the Respondents being State is required 10 be fair, reasonable, and aboveboard. ‘The actions of the Respondents ought to adhere to Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness. However, the mere fact that the rule sought to be enforced by the Respondents is absolute and without having provision to considér the fact of cach case makes it arbitrary; BECAUSE, admittedly, the submission of Bank Guarantee for the amount sought to be procured by the Respondents, did not form part of the terms and 396.17. 6.18. conditions prevailing at the time, the Petitioners applied, underwent counseling and took admissions in various courses offered by the Respondent No. 1. The introduction of the new condition and act of making it applicable to the Petitioner is contrary to law and cannot be permitted to operate; BECAUSE the impugned action imposing onerous condition of bond fail to meet the test of arbitrariness, It is submitted that” while most institutes offering Specialty courses do not impose bond condition, the in tes which had adopted the practice, have found the same to be onerous and have substantially reduced the penalty. It is further submitted that even within the institutes affiliated with the Respondent No. 5. Not all the institutes offering similar courses have adopted the practice to impose bond condition. -Furthermore, the penalty under bond is excessive and contrary to the general consensus followed throughout the nation. The actions of the Respondent No. 1 thus violate the test of reasonability / arbitrariness as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India; BECAUSE, the action of the Respondent is also unsustainable on the ground that the Petitioners 406.19. have already furnished a separate bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- as provided under the brochure. Hence the demand of another bond imposing a huge penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/-, itself reflects the arbitrary, irrational and baseless nature of the action of the Respondents; BECAUSE the bond condition imposed upon the Petitioners amounts to an agreement in restraint of trade and therefore is void. It is no more res integra that a contract which casts restriction beyond the expiry of the contract cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the Petitioners due to the circumstances at the relevant time were compelled to furnish the bond as demanded by the Respondent No. 1. While furnishing the bond of Rs. 25,00,000/- the Petitioners were also called upon to undertake to serve with any Hospital assigned by the Respondent No. 1 for a period of 3 years, The relationship between the Petitioners and the Respondents is valid for a period of 3 years, which is the tenure of the course, however, the a.the affairs of Respondents are attempting to goven inter-alia the Petitioners after the expiry of the original contract of 3 years. The said condition therefore is not only in teeth of the provisions of Contract Act but also violates the right of the ————<$$<—$$—$—— 416.20, 6.21, Petitioners under article 19(1) of the Constitution of India; BECAUSE the impugned actiéns of the Respondent No. I ate illegal, unjust and unfair, It is submitted that the Petitioners who would become senior residents upon expiry of the course, have been made to undertake to serve any Hospital for a period of 3 years, failing which an exorbitant amount mentioned in the bond i.e. Rs. 25,00,000/- has to be paid. While the condition imposed itself’ is onerous on the Petitioners, the lack of information pertaining to the probable place of appointment or the nature of appointment has been provided by the Respondent No, 1, makes the said condition even more arbitrary and unsustainable. BECAUSE the arbitrary and unreasonable of the jon is such, that as per information provided restri to the Petitioners, the Student Doctors on completing the course cannot even apply for institutes under the Respondent No. | and 2. Even where vacancies are available in the institutes of the Respondent No. 1 and 2, they do not permit students to apply unless the bond and Bank Guarantees are furnished; 426.22, BECAUSE the impugned actions reek of apathy and lack any rationality. It is submitted that the nature of the course pursued by the Petitioners with the Respondent No. 1 is that of a practical study, wherein the Petitioners are required to work as doctors. It is submitted that though the Petitioners pay tuition fees, for the majority of the course, the aspirants work for long hours as doctors. For the said work the Aspirants are paid nominal amount which is not proportional to their contributions, Instead of rewarding, the Petitioners for the service they render, the Respondents are further binding them down with onerous conditions and financial liabilities. Hence the act of the Respondents are in teeth of Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness; 6.23. BECAUSE being a state authority the Respondents being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are under a moral obligation to act as a model employer / institute. The act of the Respondent ought to be aboveboard. However in the present case, the acts of the Respondents failed to even satisfy the basic level of rationality let alone, model standard 6.24. BECAUSE the action of approach of the Respondents have violated the principles of 436.26. equality and those of natural justice which are otherwise available to the Petitioner by the mandate of law. It is submitted that as a result of the acts of the Respondent, the Petitioners have been treated prejudicially as compared to similarly situated persons who gave the same exams and even participated in the same counseling. It is submitted that the Respondents fre attempting to create a class within a class without any intelligible differentia; . BECAUSE the impugned action of the Respondents is in teeth of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts across the nation, clarifying that onerous bond condition ought not be imposed by Goverament institute; BECAUSE the impugned actions of the Respondent No. 1 are illegal as the same are in teeth of the very foundation of the institute. It is, submitted that the Respondent No, 1 is an educational institute aimed at providing cheaper access to higher education (9 the citizens of the country. However, the Respondent No, | under the garb of “investment in training” seeks to impose onerous condition of Rs. 25,00,000/- upon the 446.27. Petitioner, and therefore creates a paradoxical situation; BECAUSE the impugned circular dated 10.10.2018 is erroneous and merits to be set aside as it seeks to enforce conditions which were not mentioned in the terms and conditions, subject to which were made available to the Petitioners at the time of application, counseling and admission. It is therefore submitted that the Respondents are using these circulars to do indirectly what they are prohibited to do directly. The Respondents are trying to change the rules of the game after it is already in play. By a catena of judicial ratios, the Hon'ble Apex Court has prohibited such acte. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 in order to circumvent the illegal bond which as per Petitioner is unenforceable in law, and to profit from the Petitioners and other Student Doctors have imposed an onerous condition of buge time period of bonded service secured by an exorbitant amount of Rs, 25,00,000/- which as per the Respondents is required to be submitted in the form of Bank Guarantee. It is relevant to mention that the Petitioners would have no control over the Bank Guarantee furnished in favour of the Respondents; 456.28. BECAUSE, the Respondent No. 1 and other 1. colleges affiliated to Respondent No. 5 and recognized by MCI ought to have the same procedural and basic policies as they are regulated by common agencies and are in the common field. Furthermore, the Respondents till date has not even. given a single reason, which would differentiate it from other colleges justify the imposition of such an oncrous conditions its residents; 6.29. BECAUSE the act of the Respondents in obtaining bonded service for a period of 3 years which is secured by an exorbitant amount of Rs, 25,00,000/- is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority. It is submitted that neither the time period nor the mount hes any reasonable and rational nexus with the objective which the Respondents are purportedly seeking to achieve; Itis submitted that neither the decision increasing the fee structure nor the rationale behind it has been provided to the Petitioners. ‘The present Petition is being filed in absence of said documents in light of facts and circumstances stated above. The Petitioners reserves their right to challenge the said decision specifically as and when the same, if existing, are 469. 10. WL provided to the Petitioners. The Petitioners respectfully reserves. its-—rights. to delete/add/alter/amend the grounds of this Petition. ‘The Balance of Convenience lies in favour of the Pe joners and against the Respondents, It is submitted that the acts of the Respondents are in violation of fundamental rights, against the principles of natural justice, and in teeth of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Courts of India. That grave financial loss and prejudice shall be caused if the impugned action is not set-aside, the same would result in travesty of justice and cause immense loss to the Petitioners as the same would be a bad precedent for other cases. ‘That the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available in law to seek Redressal of its grievance, The Petitionerghayenot filed any other similar Petition impugning the actions and inactions of the Respondents in any other Court of La ‘The Annexures to the petition are the true copies of their respective originals. PRAYER 47ii, iti, iv. In light of the facts, circumstances and the grounds of challenge that have been set out herein above, the Petitioners prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: - Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other such writ quashing the communication dated 06.02.2017 on the grounds, taken in the Writ Petition; Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the.nature of quo’ warranto calling upon the Respondent No. 1 to 3 as to under what authority are they demanding Rs. 2,50,000/- as increased fee from the Petitioner; Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the illegal, unjust and baseless act of Respondents in demanding the exorbitant fee of Rs. 2,50,000/- per Petitioner per annum; Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of mandamus or any other such writ quashing, the show cause notice dated 10,01.2019;- Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of certiorari or any other such writ quashing the act of Respondents in obtaining bonded service by the Petitioner for a period of 3 years as unreasonable, 48illegal and arbitrary and without having any nexus to any purported objective; vi, Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of mandamus or any other such writ quashing the act of the Respondent No. | in obtaining undertakings of bonded services for an unreasonable period of 3 years and secured by huge amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- which is basel and devoid of any nexus; vii, Pass a Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of, certiorari or any other such writ quashing the Circular dated 10.10.2018 demanding from the Petitioners a Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- viii. Award litigation costs in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent; ix. Pass such other or further order/orders as may be st and proper on the facts and in the deemed j sumstances of this case, PLACE: NEW DELHI WANK AGNIROTRI DATE: WAIBHAV AGNIHOTRI SKV ASSOCIATES A~118, THIRD FLOOR DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI 110024 49