9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent's prayer for discharge of bond executed to serve the nation for a period of five years on the ground of medical disability has been rightly accepted by the High Court. 2. Interpretation and applicability of Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of the bond agreement. 3. The role and function of a proviso in statutory interpretation. Issue-wise Summary: 1. Discharge of Bond on Medical Disability: The core question was whether the respondent's prayer for discharge of the bond executed to serve the nation for five years on medical disability grounds was rightly accepted by the High Court. The High Court held that the respondents were required to deposit rupees one lakh, and upon such deposit, there was no further liability. 2. Interpretation and Applicability of Clauses 4, 5, and 6: The factual position was undisputed. The respondents had taken admission to the MBBS Degree Course at Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, and their guardians executed bonds requiring them to serve in the Armed Forces post-completion of the course. Clause 4 of the agreement dealt with situations where a cadet would be declared Non Service Liability (NSL), and Clauses 5 and 6 outlined the financial liabilities in such cases. The High Court observed that the candidates were removed from service liability due to medical ailments, and the appellants tried to enforce the bonds for failure to serve the nation. The High Court noted that in earlier cases, orders were passed that on payment of rupees one lakh, there would be total liquidation of liability on the bond. 3. Role and Function of a Proviso in Statutory Interpretation: The appellants argued that the bond amount covered the cost of free education and other facilities, and guidelines were issued for waiver of bond money for medical cadets declared NSL. The respondents contended that the appellants overlooked the proviso of Clause 4(a) while raising the demand. The Court analyzed the function of a proviso, stating it is to except or qualify something in the enactment. The proviso to Clause 4(a) indicated that Clause 4(a) and Clause 6 operate on different footings. The Court emphasized that a proviso carves out an exception to the main provision and does not travel beyond it. The Court reiterated principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that courts cannot read into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous and must ascertain the legislative intent from the language used. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that Clause 4(a) is subject to Clause 6, and the proviso appended to Clause 4 is an exception. The High Court's view was rational based on the facts of each case, and no interference was warranted. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
