MBBS service bonds stand automatically cancelled if Govt fails to issue appointment orders within 6 months: Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court
Bilaspur: Granting relief to a group of MBBS graduates, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that MBBS service bonds stand automatically cancelled if the State Government fails to execute them by issuing appointment orders within six months, as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2025.
The High Court bench comprising Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad made this observation while considering a plea challenging the State Government's refusal to issue no-objection certificates (NOCs) to the petitioner students even after the State failed to issue appointment orders within the six-month period.
"Accordingly, in light of the foregoing discussions and considering the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 10(6) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, this Court has no hesitation in holding that since the respondents failed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of completion of MBBS Course and internship, the bonds executed by the petitioners stood automatically cancelled by operation of law. Consequently, the appointment orders dated 24.12.2025 issued in favour of the petitioners after expiry of the statutory period of six months are held to be unenforceable and of no legal consequence. The same shall not bind the petitioners in any manner whatsoever," observed the High Court bench."
Case Background:
The petitioners completed their MBBS course from Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences in 2024 and thereafter completed their compulsory rotating medical internship in May, 2025. At the time of admission, they had executed a bond undertaking to serve under the Government Medical Service for a period of two years in accordance with the applicable admission rules.
It was the grievance of the petitioners that despite the categorical stipulation contained in Rule 10, Sub-Rule VI of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, which mandates that appointment orders are required to be issued by the State authorities within a period of six months from the completion of the course, failing which the bond obligation automatically stands cancelled, the authorities neither issued any appointment orders within the prescribed period nor granted the mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioners.
The NOCs were not issued even though the petitioners submitted repeated representations and made multiple requests. They argued that instead of adhering to the statutory mandate and recognizing the automatic extinguishment of the bond obligations upon expiry of the stipulated period, the authorities on 08.12.2025 initiated counselling for compulsory two-year Government service in respect of students whose MBBS course and internship period fell within the year 2025.
It was argued by the petitioners that since they had already completed their MBBS course earlier and had completed their compulsory rotating internship in May, 2025, and no appointment orders were issued within six months, their bond obligations had already stood cancelled by operation of law.
However, despite this, they were not issued NOCs, and due to this, they were deprived of pursuing higher studies and other professional opportunities. At this outset, they filed the plea before the High Court seeking relief.
The petitioners' counsel argued that the action on the part of the authorities was wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that under Rule 10, Sub-Rule VI of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, after completion of the MBBS course, the Government, through the Medical Education Department, is required to issue appointment orders to such graduate doctors within a period of six months, failing which the bond furnished by the candidate shall automatically stand cancelled.
Since the petitioners completed their MBBS course in 2024, completed their internship in May 2025, and no appointment orders were issued to them within the statutory period prescribed under the rules, the bonds executed by the petitioners at the time of admission would stand automatically cancelled, argued the counsel.
At the time of admission, the bond amount was fixed at Rs 25 lakh for unreserved category students and Rs 20 lakh for reserved category students. The counsel for the petitioners referred to Rule 11 of the Rules of 2025, and argued that the liability to pay bond penalty under Rule 11 can arise only when the State first fulfils its own statutory obligation under Rule 10(6) by issuing appointment orders within the prescribed period of six months.
On the other hand, the State argued that the petitioners were seeking to evade and avoid the contractual and statutory obligations voluntarily undertaken by them at the time of admission into the MBBS course, after having availed the benefit of admission under the State quota in Government medical institutions.
It was further argued that since the petitioners had been admitted in 2019, at the time of their admission, the governing field was occupied by the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2018. According to Rule 10(A) of the Rules, 2018, every candidate admitted to Government Medical Colleges was mandatorily required to execute a bond undertaking that, after successful completion of the MBBS Course and internship, such a candidate would serve under the State Government as a Medical Officer in Government Health Centres or Government Medical Colleges for a period of two years.
The counsel further submitted that the very object and purpose behind incorporating the bond condition in the Admission Rules was to ensure the availability of qualified medical practitioners in rural and remote areas of the State, particularly in Government primary Health Centres, Community Health Centres, and Government Medical Colleges facing an acute shortage of doctors.
It was argued that the policy underlying the bond condition was a welfare-oriented measure intended to strengthen public healthcare infrastructure and provide medical services to rural populations.
The counsel further argued that the State never intended to create unnecessary restrictions upon the professional advancement of medical graduates, but the bond condition was incorporated solely to ensure that the doctors educated in Government institutions at subsidised cost render public service for a limited duration in return.
Further referring to the Frequently Asked Questions relating to Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) curriculum and communication dated 01.08.2023 issued by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board of the National Medical Commission, the State counsel argued that MBBS course can only be considered completed upon successful completion of internship and the completed their internships between 21.05.2025 and 03.06.2025 and immediately thereafter the Dean of Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur vide communication dated 18.06.2025 forwarded the names of the petitioners to the Commissioner, Medical Education for issuance of appointment orders. Acting promptly the Commissioner, Medical Education vide letter dated 10.09.2025 forwarded the cases of the petitioners to the State Government for issuance of appointment orders. Thereafter, the Directorate of Health Services initiated the counselling process by issuing notice dated 08.12.2025 inviting all eligible candidates, including the petitioners, to participate in online counselling scheduled between 09.12.2025 to 12.12.2025 for allotment of postings under compulsory Government service.
It was argued that the entire process was undertaken expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the governing Rules and procedure prescribed by the State Government. Further pointing out that the petitioners had participated in the counselling process voluntarily, the counsel for the petitioners argued that once the petitioners voluntarily participated in the counselling process and accepted the process of allotment, they are estopped from turning around and challenging the same at a subsequent stage.
Observations by the High Court:
While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of Rule 10(1), Rule 10(2), Rule 10(3), Rule 10(6), Rule 10(7), and Rule 10(10) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, and noted,
"A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that while the Rules obligate students admitted in Government medical institutions to render compulsory Government service for a period of two years after completion of MBBS Course and internship, the Rules simultaneously cast a corresponding statutory obligation upon the State Government to issue appointment orders to such graduate doctors within a period of six months from completion of the course and internship. Most significantly, Rule 10(6) unequivocally stipulates that if appointment orders are not issued within the prescribed period of six months, the bond furnished by the candidate shall automatically stand cancelled. Thus, the Rules not only impose obligations upon students but also prescribe corresponding duties upon the State authorities, together with consequences for non-compliance thereof."
Regarding the internship completion period, the Court observed, "From perusal of the pleadings and documents brought on record, certain facts emerge as undisputed. It is not disputed that the petitioners were admitted into the MBBS Course at Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences during the academic session 2019– 2024. It is further not disputed that after successful completion of the MBBS Course, the petitioners underwent compulsory rotating medical internship in accordance with the Regulations framed by the National Medical Commission and completed the same between 21.05.2025 and 03.06.2025 respectively. It is also not disputed that the Dean of the institution communicated completion of internship and eligibility of the petitioners for appointment to the competent authorities vide communication dated 18.06.2025. Therefore, the factual position regarding successful completion of MBBS Course and internship by the petitioners stands conclusively established from the records."
Relying on the records, the Court also noted that despite completion of the internship and communication by the Dean of the Institution, no appointment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners within the statutory period prescribed under Rule 10(6) of the Rules of 2025.
"It further transpires that till issuance of notice dated 08.12.2025, no counselling proceedings were initiated by the respondents and no posting orders were issued to the petitioners for compulsory Government service. The petitioners, on the contrary, repeatedly approached the authorities by submitting representations requesting issuance of appointment orders in terms of the Rules so that they could discharge the obligations contemplated under the bond. However, despite repeated representations, no decision was taken by the respondents within the prescribed statutory period. The materials placed on record unmistakably demonstrate that the delay in issuance of appointment orders is solely attributable to the respondent authorities and not to any conduct on the part of the petitioners," it noted.
The HC bench also found substance in the grievance raised by the petitioners that even after expiry of the statutory period of six months, the respondent authorities failed to take any decision on their request for issuance of No Objection Certificates and acknowledgment regarding cancellation of the bond obligations.
"Instead of complying with the statutory consequences flowing from Rule 10(6), the respondents sought to initiate counselling proceedings vide notice dated 08.12.2025 and thereafter issued appointment orders dated 24.12.2025 posting the petitioners in various Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres situated in districts Bijapur and Narayanpur," it observed.
"The chronology of events clearly reveals that the respondents attempted to enforce the bond obligations only after expiry of the period prescribed under the Rules and after the statutory consequences under Rule 10(6) had already come into operation," it noted.
The bench also examined the language employed in Rule 10(6) of the Rules of 2025, spcifically stating that after completion of MBBS Course and internship, appointment orders are required to be issued by the Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department within six months, “failing which the bond filled by the candidate will be deemed to be automatically cancelled.”
Accordingly, the HC bench held,
"The phraseology employed in the Rule leaves no room for ambiguity. The legislature, in its wisdom, has consciously used the expression “shall” while prescribing the obligation upon the State Government and further employed the phrase “deemed to be automatically cancelled” for prescribing the consequence of failure to comply with such obligation. The legal effect of a deeming provision is well settled in law...Once the contingency contemplated under the Rule occurs, the consequence provided therein follows automatically without requiring any further adjudication or formal declaration. Thus, once six months elapsed from the date of completion of MBBS Course and internship without issuance of appointment orders, the bonds executed by the petitioners stood extinguished by operation of law itself. The cancellation contemplated under Rule 10(6) is automatic, self-operative, and mandatory in nature. The respondents, therefore, ceased to possess any authority thereafter either to compel the petitioners to participate in counselling proceedings or to enforce the terms of a bond which had already stood cancelled by statutory fiction. Any subsequent action undertaken by the respondents after expiry of the statutory period cannot revive an obligation which had already ceased to exist under the Rules governing the field."
"It is trite law that there can be no estoppel against a statute. Once the statute itself declares that the bond shall stand automatically cancelled upon non-issuance of appointment orders within six months, such statutory consequence cannot be nullified merely because the petitioners participated in counselling proceedings initiated after expiry of the prescribed period. Equally untenable is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are liable to deposit penalty amount for failure to join pursuant to appointment orders dated 24.12.2025," it observed.
"Once the bond stood automatically cancelled by operation of Rule 10(6), the respondents lost authority to invoke penal consequences against the petitioners. Therefore, the insistence of the respondents upon payment of Rs.25,00,000/- in case of unreserved category candidates and Rs.20,00,000/- in case of reserved category candidates is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory framework governing the field," concluded the bench.
The court also noted that the petitioners are young medical graduates who have successfully completed rigorous academic and internship requirements under the regulatory framework of the National Medical Commission.
It held, "The arbitrary withholding of No Objection Certificates and continued insistence upon non-existent bond obligations directly impedes their right to pursue higher education, employment opportunities, and professional advancement. The respondents, after failing to discharge their own statutory obligations within the prescribed timeline, cannot be permitted to prejudice the professional careers of the petitioners by relying upon obligations which have already stood extinguished by operation of law. Such action on the part of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/22/chhattisgarh-hc-bond-355460.pdf
