Government Can't Reasonably Require Execution Of Bonds Midway Through A Course: Kerala HC Sets Aside Govt. Order Mandating 1Yr Teaching Internship for M.Sc Nursing Students
The Kerala High Court reiterated that the test of arbitrariness lies on the effects and consequences of the power exercised, and not necessarily on the power itself.
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court set aside a government Order mandating a compulsory one-year teaching internship upon the execution of a bond while holding that the Government cannot reasonably require the execution of bonds midway through the course.
The Court allowed an Appeal by some students enrolled in the M.Sc Nursing Degree Course at various Government Nursing Colleges in the State challenging the government Order alleging that it was in violation of the Indian Nursing Council (INC) directives. The Bench ordered the release of certificates retained by such colleges to the students who completed their course and have not executed the bond for compulsory service.
A Division Bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P Krishna Kumar held, “Without a well-defined policy in place before the admission of students—particularly concerning the enforcement of compulsory service and penalties for bond breaches—the Government cannot reasonably require the execution of bonds midway through the course. It is also important to recognize that students have the option to enroll in private institutions instead of Government colleges. By failing to disclose its intent to mandate compulsory service before student enrollment, the Government’s demand for bond execution during the course is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the principle of legal certainty, which is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law.”
Senior Advocate George Poonthottam represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate P Sreekumar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellants, a group of M.Sc. Nursing students enrolled in various Government Nursing Colleges in Kerala for the academic years 2022-23 and 2023-24, filed a Writ Petition challenging the Government Order mandating a one-year compulsory teaching internship upon execution of a bond, requiring students to serve as bonded lecturers with a stipend of Rs. 25,000.
The Appellants contended that:
- The bond requirement violated INC guidelines, which explicitly prohibit forceful retention of original certificates.
- The government had not insisted on bond execution at the time of admission or within a reasonable period.
- The move was arbitrary, as the 2022-23 prospectus only stated that compulsory service would be optional, leaving uncertainty about students’ future obligations.
The Single Bench dismissed the Writ Petition The Appellants filed an appeal challenging the Judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court emphasised that the Government was not sure if compulsory service should be insisted on students at the time of the issuance of the prospectus. The Government kept the option alive to insist on students to execute bonds for compulsory service. “Is it possible for the Government to leave any room for uncertainty regarding the students’ future? We do not doubt the legality of insisting on compulsory bond. Every legal relationship, in whatever sphere, is constituted by legal certainty. Legal certainty is the aspect of the rule of law. That means one should be certain about the legal consequence of the fallout of nonadherence to the law,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench highlighted that the Government did not provide any quantification regarding the amount to be paid in case of breach of such bonds by the students. “This highlights the absence of a proper policy framework for implementing compulsory service. Since compulsory service is enforced through the execution of bonds, there must be clear and specific guidelines regarding the consequences of breaching these obligations,” it remarked.
The Court held that “it is an option for the students to execute the bond or not. The students cannot be compelled to execute the bond. If none of the appellants have executed the bond, and they are not prepared to execute the bond, they shall not be compelled to execute the bond in the light of the law laid as above.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. We order the release of certificates retained by the colleges to the students, who have completed the course and have not executed the bond for compulsory service, forthwith.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Divya KS & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:7933)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam; Advocates Nisha George and Silpa Sreekumar
Respondents: Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar; Government Pleader Sunilkumar Kuriakose; Advocates Binny Thomas, Vivek Menon and Abraham P.Meachinkara Paily Meachinkara