The Rajasthan High Court has struck down a retrospective imposition of a bank guarantee requirement for medical officers seeking super-specialty training, affirming that altering recruitment terms mid-process violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation. This ruling protects candidates who acted in good faith under established policy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, three postgraduate medical doctors, challenged an order dated 28.01.2026 issued by the State of Rajasthan, which mandated the submission of a bank guarantee equivalent to the service bond amount as a pre-condition for admission to NEET-SS and INI-SS courses, Senior Residency, and Fellowships. This condition was introduced for the first time after the petitioners had already appeared for and cleared the NEET-SS examination, applied for senior residency positions, and received provisional allotments.
Prior to this, the State’s consistent policy, as per the circular dated 01.04.2025, required candidates to submit only a written undertaking to serve the State for two years upon completion of their super-specialty training. No bank guarantee was ever mandated for candidates pursuing such courses under the State’s medical education framework.
Key Facts
- The petitioners successfully cleared NEET-PG and were admitted to postgraduate medical courses in Government Medical Colleges of Rajasthan under the All India and State Quota.
- Upon admission to PG courses, they executed service bonds obligating them to serve the State for a specified period after completion.
- On 20.11.2025, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, issued an advertisement for Senior Residency positions.
- Petitioner No.2 applied online for the Senior Residency position on 01.12.2025.
- The NEET-SS examination was conducted on 03.01.2026, with results declared on 09.01.2026 and interviews held on 20.01.2026.
- The impugned circular imposing the bank guarantee requirement was issued on 28.01.2026 - after the examination, results, and interviews had already concluded.
- The petitioners’ original academic documents were withheld by their respective medical colleges pending compliance with the new condition.
- The circular dated 01.04.2025, which governed their recruitment process, contained no such requirement.
- Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 permitted candidates joining Institutes of National Importance (AIIMS, PGI, JIPMER) to serve the State for two years post-training, without any financial security.
- Clause 15 of the circular dated 28.01.2026 introduced the bank guarantee condition for the same category of candidates.
Procedural History
- 20.11.2025: Advertisement for Senior Residency positions issued by AIIMS, Delhi.
- 01.12.2025: Petitioner No.2 submitted online application for Senior Residency.
- 03.01.2026: NEET-SS examination conducted.
- 09.01.2026: NEET-SS results declared.
- 20.01.2026: Interviews for Senior Residency positions concluded.
- 28.01.2026: State issued circular imposing bank guarantee requirement.
- 16.02.2026: Coordinate Bench of the Court, in Dr. Yash Vardhan v. State of Rajasthan, held that the bank guarantee condition could not be applied retrospectively.
- 19.03.2026: Another Coordinate Bench, in Dr. Ishant Kumar Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, applied the same principle and directed release of documents under the 01.04.2025 policy.
- 12.03.2026: Present writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court.
- 25.03.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners argued that the 28.01.2026 circular was retrospective, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the established policy under the 01.04.2025 circular, which had been consistently applied to prior batches. They emphasized that the recruitment process had already concluded before the new condition was introduced, and applying it now would unfairly penalize candidates who had acted in reliance on the existing rules.
Respondents did not contest the factual timeline or the existence of the 01.04.2025 circular. They conceded that the 28.01.2026 circular was issued after the NEET-SS examination and interviews, but attempted to justify it as a policy refinement. They did not provide any rationale for the sudden change or demonstrate how it served a legitimate state interest.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 to the extent it imposed the bank guarantee condition.
- A declaration that the petitioners are entitled to pursue super-specialty courses without furnishing a bank guarantee.
- Direct release of their original academic documents by the respective medical colleges.
- Directions to ensure their admission to allotted institutions without delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a government circular imposing a new financial condition - a bank guarantee equivalent to the service bond amount - can be applied retrospectively to candidates who had already completed the examination, interview, and selection process under a prior policy that contained no such requirement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, established in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation and State of Kerala v. K. Gopalan, arguing that candidates had a reasonable expectation to be governed by the rules in force at the time of their application. They cited Dr. Yash Vardhan v. State of Rajasthan (16.02.2026) and Dr. Ishant Kumar Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (19.03.2026), where coordinate benches had held that altering recruitment conditions after the commencement of the selection process is arbitrary and violates Article 14. They emphasized that the 01.04.2025 circular explicitly permitted candidates to join INIs without a bank guarantee, and the 28.01.2026 circular was a material departure from this policy.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a detailed counter-affidavit or substantiate the need for the bank guarantee. Counsel conceded that the circular was issued after the NEET-SS examination and interviews but argued that it was a "policy improvement" aimed at ensuring compliance with service bonds. No evidence was presented to show that the previous system of undertakings had failed or that the bank guarantee was necessary to prevent breach.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the timeline of events and found that the recruitment process for Senior Residency positions commenced with the advertisement dated 20.11.2025. The application, examination, result declaration, and interview all occurred before the issuance of the impugned circular on 28.01.2026. The Court held that once a recruitment process begins, the terms governing it become fixed for all candidates who participate in good faith.
"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."
The Court further relied on its own earlier decision in Dr. Ishant Kumar Sahu, which had held that applying a new condition after the selection process is complete amounts to altering the "rules of the game midstream" without justification. The Court noted that the State had not demonstrated any change in circumstances, public interest, or administrative necessity to warrant such a retroactive imposition.
The Court also rejected the State’s attempt to distinguish between "Fellowship" and "Senior Residency" under Clause 15 of the 01.04.2025 circular, citing its own observation in Dr. Rohit Yadav that the intent of the circular was to facilitate access to INIs without imposing additional financial burdens.
The Court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation protects individuals from arbitrary administrative changes, particularly in matters affecting career progression and fundamental rights under Article 21. The withholding of original documents, which are essential for joining new institutions, was held to be an unlawful restraint.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its earlier order dated 19.03.2026 in Dr. Ishant Kumar Sahu v. State of Rajasthan. The impugned circular dated 28.01.2026 shall not apply to the petitioners. The Principals of the respective medical colleges are directed to release the original academic documents of the petitioners directly to their allotted Super Speciality Colleges. The petitioners are directed to furnish an undertaking to serve the State for the remaining bond period after completion of their super-specialty training, and a copy of such undertaking must be filed with the Court within one week. The State shall not withhold documents or delay admission on account of the bank guarantee condition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Recruitment Rules Cannot Be Changed Mid-Process
- Practitioners representing candidates in government recruitment must challenge any new condition introduced after the advertisement, application, or examination phase.
- The commencement of recruitment is deemed to be the date of the advertisement, not the date of final selection.
- Any post-application policy change that imposes financial or procedural burdens is prima facie arbitrary.
Legitimate Expectation Protects Candidates in Public Service
- Candidates who rely on published policies are entitled to be governed by those policies even if they are later amended.
- The State must demonstrate a compelling public interest to justify retroactive changes - mere administrative convenience is insufficient.
- This principle applies across all government recruitment: medical, teaching, police, and civil services.
Document Withholding Is Unlawful Without Statutory Authority
- Withholding original academic documents as leverage for compliance with new conditions is illegal.
- The State must ensure timely transmission of documents to new institutions, as per existing circulars.
- Any delay or refusal to release documents can be challenged under Article 226 as a violation of the right to education and livelihood under Article 21.
