HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31984 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ami Tandon Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dr Ravi And 14 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 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 2 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 3 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. September 17, 2026 piyush WRIC No. 31984 of 2026 4 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad