[2026:RJ-JP:8963] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3682/2026 Dr. Ritanshu Sethi S/o Suresh Sethi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mastana Cottage, H. No. 226/a, Gali No. 5, D. C. Colony, Sirsa, Haryana - 125055 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 2. The Commissioner, Department Of Medical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Chikitsa Siksha Bhawan, Near Pink Square Mall, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Raj. 3. The Chairman, Dm / Mch / Ms / Md / Other Candidates Allotment Board - 2026, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur, Raj. 4. The Principal, Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 5. The Principal, Govt. Medical College, Sriganganagar, Raj. 6. The Secretary, National Medical Commission, Pocket - 14, Sector - 8, Phase - I, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077 7. The Director, Aiims Bathinda, Jodhpur Romana, Mandi Dabwali Road, Bathinda, Punjab - 151001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tanvisha Pant for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 25/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- [2026:RJ-JP:8963] (2 of 7) [CW-3682/2026] “ In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and; I. The service bond coerced by the state be declared unenforceable and void as the state has failed to provide continuous employment/stipend/salary to the petitioner, resulting in clear violation and breach of conditions of bond. II. The impugned action of the Respondents in not releasing the documents and not reducing the bond amount as done for previous (2021) batches, may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary. And Respondents be directed to release the originals documents of petitioner, forthwith. III. The respondents be directed to release the originals documents and NOC to the petitioner upon an undertaking for joining of Fellowship of INI, in the meantime. Any other appropriate order or direction that the Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset has relied upon interim orders passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18011/2025 titled as Dr. Harshpreet Kour Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others dated 10.02.2026 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19839/2025 titled as Dr. Yash Vardhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others dated 16.02.2026. Relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Dr. Yash Vardhan (supra) reads as under:- “18. It is a matter of fact that no reply to the application under consideration or counter to the additional affidavit has been filed by the State. It is not in dispute that the order which provides for submission of bank guarantee by the petitioners equivalent to the amount of service bond has been issued by the State of Rajasthan on 28.01.2026 and thus, there was no occasion whatsoever for any candidate to presume or apprehend imposition of any such condition prior to the said order coming into effect. [2026:RJ-JP:8963] (3 of 7) [CW-3682/2026] 19. It is also a matter of record that prior to issuance of circular dated 28.01.2026, the circular dated 01.04.2025 was holding its field. Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 reads as under:- “15. यदद कोई छात दकसी Institute of National Importance (AIIMS, PGI, JIPMER) मे Fellowship फे दलए चयदनत होता है तो उसे भी Fellowships उपरान 2 वरर की राज मे राजकीय सेवा देने की शतर पर ही अनुमदत दी जायेगी।" And, Clause 15 of the circular dated 28.01.2026 reads as under:- “15. यदद कोई अभरर सातकोतर अरवा सुपर सेदशयदलटी पाठकम पूरर करने के उपरांत दकसी ' इंसीटूट ऑफ नेशनल इमॉटस' (Any AIIMS/ PGI Chandigarh, JIPMER) तरा अन ' इंसीटूट ऑफ नेशनल इमॉटस' संसान) मे सीदनयर रेजीडेनी हेतु चयदनत होता है, तो उसे राज सरकार / संसान दारा बांड रादश के समतुल बैक गारंटी जमा ” कराने पर अनुमदत दी जा सके गी। Clause 15 of both these circulars deals with the situation where a candidate is willing to join an INI. 20. Though, the respondents seriously dispute the applicability of Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 upon SR-ship on the ground that the word used in Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 is “Fellowship” and not “SR-ship”, this Court in the case of Dr. Rohit Yadav (supra) considered the issue of SR-ship has duly referred to the order dated 01.04.2025 and has held as under:- “16. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the judgments cited at Bar and upon assiduous perusal of the records, this Court has made the following observations: 16.1 That PGIMER Chandigarh is an Institute of National Importance. 16.2 That the RNT college, Udaipur upon an undertaking released the original documents of the petitioner. 16.3 That the respondent No.3 has not released the provisional degree and NOC of the petitioner. 16.4 That the circular dated 01.04.2025 issued by the Secretary permits the candidate for pursuing program/service in an Institute of National Importance for the respective period and thereafter completing remaining years of service as per Bond condition. 17. While placing reliance upon Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has expressed his willingness to serve as a Senior Resident with the State for the remaining period, this Court in the interest of justice deems it apposite to allow the present petition with the following directions: 17.1 Provisional degree of the petitioner be released along with NOC and requisite documents, if any. [2026:RJ-JP:8963] (4 of 7) [CW-3682/2026] 17.2 An undertaking in pursuance to the dictum passed in judgment Dr. Nishant Gopal (Supra), as on date be furnished to the State Government assuring compliance of the remaining Bond period in future. 17.3 PGIMER Chandigarh to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Senior Resident without any break. 17.4 Respondent No.3 is directed to release requisite documents and NOC in favor of PGI Chandigarh.” Thus, it is not open for the respondents to argue that the Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 will not apply on a candidate willing to join an INI for SR-ship. 21. Now, comparing Clause 15 of both the circulars i.e., circular dated 01.04.2025 and circular dated 28.01.2026, it is evident that the circular dated 28.01.2026 imposes an onerous condition upon the candidates of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of service bond. As the said circular came into effect only on 28.01.2026 and the applicant/petitioner No.2 has applied at AIIMS, Delhi for SR-ship in pursuance to an Advertisement dated 20.11.2025, which was issued much prior to issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026 and even the online application form was filled on 01.12.2025 in pursuance to which, the examination was held on 03.01.2026, result of which was declared on 09.01.2026 and even the interview was held on 20.01.2026, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the applicant/petitioner No.2 would stand governed by circular dated 01.04.2025 and circular dated 28.01.2026 cannot be applied retrospectively upon the applicant/petitioner No.2 herein. It is more than settled that a circular cannot be applied retrospectively, more so to the detriment of a candidate who has already participated in the recruitment process on the basis of a circular which was existing on the date of commencement of the recruitment process. 22. It is also well established that a recruitment process commences with date of issuance of the Advertisement for recruitment. Applying the circular dated 28.01.2026 upon a recruitment process which has already commenced by issuance of the Advertisement on 20.11.2025 would tantamount to altering the rules of the game mid-way and that too, without any rationale, transparency or justification.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case as well, crucial and relevant events have taken place prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026 by the State, viz. [2026:RJ-JP:8963] (5 of 7) [CW-3682/2026] i) Issuance of advertisement by AIIMS, Bathinda on 09.01.2026. ii) Date of submission of online Application on 26.01.2026; 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the aforementioned advertisement, a result notification has been released on 18.02.2026 by AIIMS-Bathinda, declaring the petitioner as one of the successful candidates for Fellowship and the petitioner is required to report at AIIMS- Bathinda for joining of the said programme on or before 28.02.2026 along with all of his original documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Clause 16 of the circular dated 28.01.2026 which reads as under: “16. यदद अभरर सुपर सेदशयदलटी कोसर / Fellowship मे चयदनत होता है एवं उक इन पदतदषत संसानों मे मूल दसावेजों की आवशकता होने पर अंडरटैकदकग ली जाकर एक माह के दलए मूल दसावेज ददये जा सके गे तरा यदद अभरर वहां जॉइन करने जाता है उस ससदत मे बॉण रादश के समतुल बैक गारणी ली जाकर मूल दसावेज ददये जा सके गे।" Thus, considering the fact that the advertisement and submission of application have taken place prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026, the present writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the factum of the above mentioned relevant events taking place prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026 and also the factum of interim orders passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Harshpreet Kour (supra) and Dr. Yash Vardhan (supra). [2026:RJ-JP:8963] (6 of 7) [CW-3682/2026] 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts obtained, more particularly the fact that the crucial and relevant events mentioned above have taken place prior to the issuance of circular dated 28.01.2026, which stands corroborated from the perusal of the advertisement dated 09.01.2026, issued by AIIMS-Bathinda, and the result notification granting Fellowship to the petitioner dated 18.02.2026 and taking guidance from the interim orders passed by this Court on 10.02.2026 and 16.02.2026, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed, though to the limited extent of release of petitioner’s original documents. 8. As the petitioner has qualified the Stage-I and Stage-II examinations conducted by AIIMS-Bathinda, which is an INI and has been called to report at the said institute for Fellowship along with his original documents, the respondents are directed to release the original documents of the petitioner, immediately on furnishing of an undertaking by the petitioner to the effect that he would serve the State Government for the period as stipulated in the bond executed and submitted by him after completion of the tenure of his Fellowship at AIIMS-Bathinda. The undertaking would also state that in the event of him failing to serve the State Government, he would pay the amount to the State Government as mentioned in the bond. 9. As the petitioner has duly submitted his willingness to furnish the undertaking and even the learned counsel for the petitioner has made the said submission at bar, a copy of the undertaking so furnished by the petitioner be also filed before this Court and be [2026:RJ-JP:8963] (7 of 7) [CW-3682/2026] made part of the record so as to ensure that the conditions stipulated in the undertaking are duly adhered to by the petitioner. The undertaking is to be filed before this Court within one week of furnishing of the same with the State Government. 10. It is also clarified that the said directions for release of documents are being issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been granted Fellowship at AIIMS- Bathinda, which is an INI. 11. In case, if he fails to join AIIMS-Bathinda, he would be mandatorily required to handover the original documents to the State Government within a period of seven days from the said rejection/non-joining of the petitioner. 12. With the above directions, the writ petition as well as pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /107