UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus PRIYANKAN SHARAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 08-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 237 
UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 
A 
II. 
PRIYANKAN SHARAN AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2008) 
-1 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 
8 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Military Service: 
Admission in M.B.B.S. Course in Armed Forces Medical 
College - Agreement to serve the nation for a specified period c 
of time by executing service bond - No service liability on 
happening of certain events including unfitness on medical 
grounds after making payment of certain amount in terms of 
clauses 5 & 6 of the agreement - No requirement of making 
'f 
any such payment in terms of proviso to clause 4 of the 
D 
agreement - High Court ordered discharge of bond in respect 
of respondents on ground of medical disability - Correctness 
of - Held: High Court in each case found that the candidate 
was suffering from ailment and exempted from service liability 
therefor - Moreover, a sum of rupees one lakh was deposited 
E 
by them and No Objection Certificate furnished - Thus, High 
Court's view is a rational one and based on facts of each case 
- Hence, no interference with the impugned judgment is called 
for 
-"\ 
F 
Interpretation of Statutes - Principles of construction: 
(i) 'Casus Omissus' and 'Statutes as a whole' - Meaning of. 
(ii) Proviso ·to Section of a Statute - Scope of- Discussed. 
(iii) Golden rule for construing statutes - Discussed. 
G 
Maxims: 
Maxim 'Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur' 
- Applicability of. 
237 
H 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents took admission in MBBS course of 
Armed Forces Medical College by executing a service 
bond to serve the nation after completion of the course. 
Clause 4 of the Service Agreement deal with a situation 
when a cadet shall be declared to have become Non 
B Service Liability (NSL). On the happening of certain 
contingence as specified in Clause 5 and 6 of the bond, 
a cadet could be discharged of service liability else he 
would be liable to pay certain amount with interest in 
case he opted out not to serve the nation. Proviso to 
c Clause 4 declares that a student may be allowed to 
continue his stay with hostel on payment of the normal 
expenses of education including tuition fees and fees for 
boarding and lodging facilities as applicable from time to 
time if he/she has contracted the disease/disability in the 
0 circumstances over which he/she has no control on which 
the decision of the Authority shall be final and for which 
he/she has not refused treatment and further in such 
eventuality he/she may not be required to pay any amount 
to the Government as specified in clause 6 of the 
agreeme1t in lieu of Non Service Liability. 
E 
The question which arose for determination in these 
appeals was as to whether the High Court was right in 
granting relief to respondents by discharging them from 
the service bond on ground of medical liability. 
F 
Appellant-Union of India and others contended that 
till 1998 the bond amount which covered the cost of free 
education, ration and other facility during the entire period 
of four and a half years was rupees three lakhs; that the 
bond amount was revised w.e.f. July, 1999 and guidelines 
G were issued on 18.2.2002 for deciding the cases relating 
•~ waiver of bond money in respect of medical cadet 
declared NSL on medical grounds; and that though in 
each case the cadet was declared NSL but they were 
required to pay the bond money as demanded. 
H 
' 
' ' 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRIYANKAN 
239 
~· 
SHARAN AND ANR. 
Respondent-cadet submitted that the proviso of A 
i 
Clause 4(a) of the agreement has been lost sight of by the 
appellants while raising the demand. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court . 
~ 
HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of Clause 4(a) of the B 
, 
agreement makes the position clear that the same is 
' 
subject to Clause 6. The proviso to Clause 4(a) of the 
agreement makes the position clear that Clause 4(a) and 
Clause 6 operat~ in different footings. (Para - 8) [248-G] 
1.2 In the case of respondents, the appellant and its c 
functionaries proceeded on the basis as if respondent No.1 
refused to undergo surgery. From the statement made in 
the petition itself it is clear that there was no such refusal 
but there was a prayer for postponement of the surgery till 
'1 
examinations are over. (Para - 9) [248-H 249-A] 
D 
i 
1.3 Stand of the appellants before the High Court 
was that in a large number of cases students are being 
reported as medically unfi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.