DR RAVI AND 14 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 31984 of 2026

Dr Ravi And 14 Others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                         :    Ami Tandon
Counsel for Respondent(s)                         :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 1
                 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Ms. Sristi Ghoshal, Advocate, along with Mr. Ami Tandon,
counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioners, who belong to the MD/MS batch of the year 2021 and
are serving as Senior Residents at their respective places of assignment
pursuant to the Government bonds executed by them, have completed one
year and are eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant
Professors against the vacancies advertised. They are basically aggrieved
for discrimination being meted out to them by the order dated 27.07.2026
passed by the State Government refusing to grant No Objection
Certificate (NOC) to complete the conditions of their Government bonds
of service at the new places where they may be appointed after being
selected, despite the fact that the Director General, Medical Education,
Uttar Pradesh, had forwarded their applications with recommendations
vide letters dated 01.06.2026 and 20.06.2026.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that grant of NOC virtually
is rendered otiose in the event petitioners are restrained from discharging
duties at their present new assignment pursuant to the appointment, and
are repatriated to their original place of posting to complete their
residency period under the bond.

4. It is further contended that after the selection and appointment, the
career of the petitioners would get jeopardized, as it would only depend
                                                      WRIC No. 31984 of 2026
                               2


upon the mercy of the appointing authority in granting relaxation to
complete the period of bond at their places of assignment under the order
previously passed by the State Government.

5. It is argued that the stand taken by the State Government is that the
petitioners do not dispute that, if they are selected and appointed, they
would be serving out the period of bond in the new hospitals/places of
appointment within the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh and,
therefore, there would be no prejudice caused to the State Government.

6. Looking to the object for which the bond had been executed, i.e., to
serve the people of the State, the stand taken by the State Government
prima facie appeared to be discriminatory and inequitable and hence the
State counsel, was asked to seek instructions in the matter from the State.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, today placed
before us the judgment of the Lucknow Bench in the case of Aniket
Jaiswal v. State of U.P. in Writ-A No. 7303 of 2026, wherein, in an
identical set of facts and on the same controversy being raised, the
Lucknow Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside
the decision of the State Government, with a further direction to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Education, to review the decision
regarding grant of NOC to the petitioner to serve out the period of the
bond at AIIMS, Raebareli, in that case. The direction was issued to take a
decision within a period of ten days.

8. Upon perusal of the judgment, we find that the learned Judge of the
Lucknow Bench referred to the guidelines laid down under the
Government Order dated 07.03.2018, providing the conditions to be
complied with by the persons executing the bond, and has further referred
to the recommendation made by the Director General, Medical Education,
to the State Government for the purposes of completion of the bond by
the selected doctors at their places of selection and appointment at
AIIMS, Raebareli.

9. However, the records reveal that the Government Order dated
07.03.2018 came to be further amended on 23.08.2022, which provided
for an amended Clause 6, the relevant condition whereof is reproduced
                                                      WRIC No. 31984 of 2026
                               3


hereinbelow translating into English:

"The post of Assistant Professors are currently lying vacant in some of the
Government Medical Colleges and recognized Medical Institutions and
Medical Universities in various disciplines after completing P.G. Course
and since obtaining P.G. Degree for the purposes of appointment on the
post of Assistant Professors experience as 1 year senior resident is an
eligibility, accordingly, such candidates who are covered under the
service bond and have acquired above eligibility they should be
appointed/posted against the vacancies of Assistant Professors in the
concerned specialty/discipline on contract basis. The service rendered as
an Assistant Professor would be counted towards the remaining period of
service bond as a service rendered under the bond.

Clause-3: In view of the decision taken under clause-1 of the chart above
the Government Order No.950/71-2-82/2017 dated 07.03.2018 would be
taken to be amended to the above extent whereas other conditions under
the Government Order dated 07.03.2018 shall remain intact."

10. Thus the Government Order, vide its Clause 3, very much provides
that the Government Order dated 07.03.2018 shall be treated as amended
to that extent.

11. The record further reveals that, under the order dated 06.08.2026,
permission was granted to similarly placed doctors to join at their
respective places of selection and appointment from their original places
of posting while they were serving out the period of residency under the
bond, of course, with this rider that the period remained to be completed
under the bond shall be deemed to have been completed by virtue of their
joining and serving at the new places of appointment.

12. Thus, we find that the petitioners have, as a matter of fact, been
discriminated against by the orders passed by the State Government, and
the orders impugned in the present petition also runs contrary to the very
policy of the State Government reflected in the Government Order dated
23.08.2022, whereby the provisions of the Government Order dated
07.03.2018 were amended. Whether it is a contract appointment at new
place or regular appointment, it would hardly make any difference if basic
                                                                                          WRIC No. 31984 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    nature of work is to serve as doctor.

                                    13. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no justification for the State
                                    Government to defend the decision taken under the impugned orders.
                                    Both impugned orders dated 27.07.2026, filed as Annexure-1 to the writ
                                    petition, are accordingly hereby quashed.

                                    14. The respondents are further directed to grant NOC to the petitioners to
                                    participate in the interview and seek selection and appointment in the
                                    light of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 23rd
                                    August, 2022, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall serve out
                                    the remaining period under the bond at their new places of selection and
                                    appointment. The appropriate decision regarding the grant of NOC to the
                                    petitioners shall be taken by the State Government within a period of one
                                    week from today.

                                    15. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed.



                                                                       (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    piyush




Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad