Govt Can't Impose Compulsory Service Bond On Students Midway Through Course, 'Legal Certainty' Proscribes Unforeseen Obligations: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has ruled that government cannot insist students to execute bonds for compulsory service midway through their course. The Court further stated that the government should have informed the students about the compulsory service before admitting them to the program and cannot impose the execution of such bond agreements midway through their studies.The Court passed the...
The Kerala High Court has ruled that government cannot insist students to execute bonds for compulsory service midway through their course. The Court further stated that the government should have informed the students about the compulsory service before admitting them to the program and cannot impose the execution of such bond agreements midway through their studies.
The Court passed the above order in a writ appeal filed by few M.Sc Nursing students from the 2022-23 and 2023-24 batches, enrolled in various Government Nursing Colleges. They had challenged a government order dated July 11, 2024, which mandated a one year teaching internship upon the execution of a bond.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar explained the concept of 'legal certainty' and stated that government actions must be based on pre-established rules, with clear certainty regarding about the penalties that would follow in case of breach of those rules.
“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.”
The appellants stated that government order mandated students like them who enrolled from 2022-23 onwards and have completed M.Sc Nursing as bonded lecturers with a stipend of twenty five thousand rupees. It is stated that the government order was violative of the Indian Nursing Council directives, which deem the practise of requiring service bonds from students as unethical.
The Court noted that the Nursing Council directives were meant to prevent nursing institutions from compelling students to work by retaining their original certificates. It also noted that the Apex Court in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents and Others v Union of India and Others (2019) that compulsory bonds in Government institutions are not in violation of any law in force.
The Court noted that the appellants were 2022-23 and 2023-24 enrolled students. It referred to the admission prospectus to Post Graduate Degree course of 2022-23 and 2023-24.
The relevant portion regarding compulsory service reads thus, Compulsory Service – “Compulsory Service will be optional to the students admitted for M.Sc Nursing course in Govt. College of Nursing. If the Government desires to implement Compulsory Service, every student is bound to do the same.”
The Court noted that the government was uncertain about enforcing compulsory service when issuing the admission prospectus and thus left it open.
The Court explained the concept of 'legal certainty' in government actions by stating thus, “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 non- adherence to the law. In governance, the Government's actions must be effectuated on pre-established rules with certainty on the coercive measures that would follow on breach of such rules.”
The Court further clarified that government cannot arbitrarily impose unforeseen obligations upon students by insisting for execution of compulsory bond agreements after taking admission. The Court thus concluded that the government should have required the execution of bond agreements before admission.
Court further added, “All power must be exercised responsibly, with accountability, and through thoughtful consideration and application of mind. It must also respect the rights of others and adhere to a fair and transparent procedure. Consequently, the exercise of such power is open to challenge. Exercise of such power in a context becomes arbitrary if such exercise results in an unanticipated outcome of pre-established relations on defined norms.”
The Court stated that the government lacks policy framework for enforcing compulsory service and stated that clear and specific guidelines outlining the consequences of violations are essential for its enforcement.
As such, the Court held that students cannot be compelled for execution of compulsory service bonds. The Court thus directed the college to release certificates of students who have completed their course and have not executed such compulsory service bonds.
Cousnel for Appellants: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George, Silpa Sreekumar
Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Sunilkumar Kuriakose, Senior Advocate P.Sreekumar, Advocates Binny Thomas, Vivek Menon, Abraham P.Meachinkara Paily Meachinkara
Case Title: Divya K S v State of Kerala
Case No: WA NO. 158 OF 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Click here to Read/Download Order