1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 8337/2010
Dr.Pooja Mathur.................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others.............................. Respondents
For the petitioner : Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Counsel
with Shri Abhijit Dave, Advocate
For the respondents: Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional
No.1 to 4 Advocate General
For the respondent : Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate
No.5.
For the respondent : Smt.Indira Nair, Senior Counsel with
No.6 Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate
Writ Petition No.9619/2010
Dr.Ritu Agrawal............................................ Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others................................ Respondents
For the petitioner : Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate
For the respondents: Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional
No.1 to 3 Advocate General
Writ Petition No.6321/2010
Dr.Sambit Pradhan and others........................ Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and others............................... Respondents
For the petitioners : Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate
For the respondents: Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional
No.1 & 2 Advocate General
For the respondent : Smt.Indira Nair, Senior Counsel with
No.6 Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate
=========================================
2
Present: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri S.R.Alam
Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(29/10/2010)
As per: S. R. Alam, Chief Justice
In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner has questioned
the validity of the provisions contained in Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule
1.20(16) of M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course
Entrance Examination Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
2010 Rules’) whereas in W.P. No.6321/2010 the petitioner has
challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules.
However, in Writ Petition No.9619/2010 though the validity of the
rules has not been specifically challenged but the point in issue of
this petition is interlinked with the controversy involved in Writ
Petition No.8337/2010 and, therefore, this Court vide order dated
17.8.2010 directed the petition to be listed along with Writ Petition
No.8337/2010. This is how all the three petitions were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner, inter alia, has
challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of the
2010 Rules. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant
admission in M.S. Gynaecology to the petitioner against the seat
which is kept vacant vide order dated 23.6.2010 passed by Indore
Bench of this Court. The petitioner has also sought a direction to
respondents No.1 to 4 to allow her to participate in the second
round of counselling. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that
petitioner has obtained M.B.B.S. degree with four gold medals. She
as well as respondent No.5 appeared in Pre P.G. Test, 2010,
conducted by the respondent No.2 in which the petitioner and
respondent No.5 got equal marks i.e. 151 out of 200. It is relevant
to mention here that in Part-B of the examination also the petitioner
and respondent No.5 secured equal marks. Though the petitioner
3
as well as respondent No.5 secured equal marks, yet the
respondent No.5 was placed at Sr. No.58 in the merit list, whereas
the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.61 in the merit list on the sole
ground that respondent No.5 is older in age. One Dr. Neha
Sharma, who had also appeared in Pre P.G. test, filed a writ
petition, namely, W.P.No.3565/2010. In the said writ petition Indore
Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 06.4.2010 directed that
one seat in M.S. Gynaecology shall be kept vacant till next date of
hearing. The respondent No.5 who had participated in Pre. P.G.
counselling could not get the seat in M.S. Gynaecology, therefore,
she opted for a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics (for
short ‘DGO’) in M.P. quota and obtained admission. She had also
appeared in All India Entrance Examination. In All India quota
seats also she could secure a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology.
Thus, the respondent No.5 obtained seat in DGO in M.P. quota as
well as in All India quota. The respondent No.5 after getting
admission in diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics
submitted her resignation from the seat in DGO of M.P. quota.
However, by suppressing the aforesaid fact she filed a writ petition,
namely, W.P. No. 6092/2010 in which a relief was claimed that she
be permitted to appear in the second round of counselling.
3. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma and
respondent No.5 came up for hearing before Indore Bench of this
Court on 20.5.2010. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha
Sharma was dismissed whereas the writ petition preferred by
respondent No.5, Dr. Ritu Agrawal, was disposed of with a
direction to permit her to appear in second round of counselling for
a seat in M.S. Gynaecology. It is averred that respondent No.5 was
not entitled to appear in second round of counselling. In the
aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner of W.P.No.8337/2010 has
challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules which
provides that if two candidates secure equal marks even in Part B
of the question paper, the candidate older in age will be placed
4
higher in inter se merit of such candidates. She also challenged the
validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which provides that any
candidate who has been allotted a seat in a college/institution will
not be permitted to participate in the subsequent counselling.
4. The petitioner in W.P.No.9619/2010, Dr.Ritu Agrawal, has
challenged the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by a Committee
headed by Director, Medical Education, by which she has been
held to be ineligible to participate in second round of counselling.
5. Petitioners in W.P.No.6321/2010 have challenged the validity
of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which prohibits a candidate
from appearing in the second round of counselling once he/she is
allotted a seat in first round of counselling.
6. Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have filed a detailed return in
W.P.No.8337/2010 which has been adopted in W.P.No.9619/2010
and W.P.No.6321/2010. In the return it is, inter alia, stated that the
challenge putforth by the petitioner to the rules in question is
misconceived. It has been averred that Rule 9.9 of M.P. Medical
and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2006,
which was in para materia to Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules has
been held to be intra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Arun Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P., ILR [2007] M.P. 178.
Thus, the challenge to the aforesaid rule is no longer res integra. It
has further been averred that challenge to Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the
2010 Rules is also misconceived as the same is not in violation of
Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations,
2000 (in short ‘Regulations’) which has been framed by Medical
Council of India. The higher age in case of other things being equal
is a universally accepted criteria to give preference to selected
candidate. It has further been averred that respondent No.5 was
ineligible to participate in second round of counselling.
5
7. Respondent No.5 has filed return in W.P.No.8337/2010 in
which, inter alia, it is stated that due to interim order passed by this
Court in writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma by which one
seat in M.S. Gynaecology was directed to be kept vacant, the
respondent No.5 could not be selected. She under protest and
reserving her right for the aforesaid seat opted for seat in DGO in
M.P. quota. It has further been averred that contention of the
petitioner that respondent No.5 after having submitted her
resignation and acceptance of the same, cannot claim a seat in
M.S. Gynaecology, is misconceived. It has further been averred
that petitioner as well as respondent No.5 had appeared in second
round of counselling for a seat of M.S. Gynaecology, however, the
candidature of respondent No.5 was rejected by a Committee vide
order dated 22.6.2010 which is under challenge in
W.P.No.9619/2010.
8. Respondent No.6, Medical Council of India, has filed counter
affidavit in which, inter alia, it has been stated that Regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India, under the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1956 Act’) have
statutory force. It has been averred that the Regulations have been
framed by Medical Council of India which prescribe minimum
eligibility criteria for admission to P.G. courses as well as time
schedule for making admissions to P.G. courses. It is not
permissible for any University or Medical institute to depart from
the norms with regard to eligibility criteria and time schedule fixed
by the Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri
R.P.Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted
that Section 20 of the 1956 Act empowers the Medical Council of
India to prescribe standards for Post Graduate Medical Education
for the guidance of Universities. In exercise of powers under
Section 33(l) of the 1956 Act, the Medical Council of India has
6
framed Regulations which are known as Post Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 2000. The aforesaid Regulations have
statutory force as has been held by Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti
Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 1999 SC 2894,
State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others,
(2003) 7 SCC 83 and Harish Verma and others vs. Ajay
Srivastava and another, (2003) 8 SCC 69. Regulation 9 of
Regulations provides that students for Post Graduate Medical
Courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of academic merit. It
is argued that Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules is ultra vires
Regulation 9 of Regulations inasmuch as the same prescribes a
criteria of placement in merit list on the basis of age, in case
candidates secure equal marks. It is contended that aforesaid rule
is contrary to Regulation 9 framed by Medical Council of India. It is
further submitted that Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules in so far as
it prohibits a candidate from participating in second round of
counselling merely because he has been allotted a seat in first
round of counselling is arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned senior
counsel in this connection has placed reliance on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Sneha
Satyanarayan Agrawal and others, AIR 2009 SC 323. It is further
submitted that on 06.4.2010 Indore Bench of this Court by interim
order directed that one seat of M.S.Gyneacology shall be kept
vacant. Thereafter, on 07.4.2010 the first counselling was held
whereas second counselling was held on 04.6.2010. Therefore,
when the petitioner appeared in the first round of counselling, seat
in M.S. Gyneacology was not available and, therefore, it cannot be
said that petitioner participated in second round of counselling. It
was further submitted that respondent No.5 having resigned from
the seat of DGO from State quota was ineligible to participate in
second round of counselling. It is further contended that Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Singh Yadav vs. State of
M.P. and others, 2007 (1) MPHT 325, while dealing with Rule 9.9
7
of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination
Rules, 2006, did not test the validity of aforesaid Rules on the anvil
of Regulation 9 of Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.
10. Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.6321/2010 while adopting the submissions made by
learned senior counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.8337/2010, has
submitted that in all other States the candidates who have
participated in the first round of counselling are permitted to
participate in the second round of counselling and, therefore, the
Medical Council of India cannot be allowed to contend that the
candidate who has appeared in first round of counselling and has
been allotted a seat, cannot be permitted to participate in the
second round of counselling.
11. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General
for respondents No.1, 3 & 4 has submitted that for the purpose of
determining inter se merit Pre.P.G. Entrance Test is held as
students come from different universities and from different
backgrounds. In order to bring the candidates at par and to
determine their inter se merit, Common Entrance Test is held. It
has further been submitted that in all the brochures, which have
been relied upon by the petitioners, preference has been given on
the basis of age. It has further been submitted that the higher age
in case candidates secure equal marks is a universally accepted
criteria to give preference to selected candidate and, therefore,
Rule 1.19(2)(b) of 2010 Rules is not violative of Regulation 9 of
Regulations. It has further been submitted that so far as validity of
Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules is concerned the same is no longer
res integra as the Division Bench of this Court in Arun Singh
Yadav (supra) has already upheld the validity of para materia
provision of aforesaid 2006 Rules. In support of his submissions
learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on
decisions of Supreme Court in A.P. Christians Medical
8
Education Society vs. Government of A.P. and another, (1986)
2 SCC 667 and Mabel vs. State of Haryana and others, (2002) 6
SCC 318.
12. Smt.Indira Nair, learned senior counsel for Medical Council of
India has contended that after expiry of dead line fixed by the
Supreme Court for admissions in medical course i.e. 30.6.2010, no
admission in Post Graduate Courses can be granted. If any
direction is issued by this Court at this point of time directing that
the petitioners be admitted in any of the Post Graduate Courses
the same would amount to midstream admission which is not
permissible in law. She further submitted that merely because a
vacancy in a particular course exists, the same cannot be a ground
to fill up the seat. Learned senior counsel has drawn our attention
to 1.20(15) of 2010 Rules and has submitted that if a candidate
does not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects/courses
available at the time of her/his counselling, he/she may give “opt
for waiting” option in writing and his/her name will be placed in
order of merit. If any seat falls vacant on or before 31st of May,
2010, in any Medical/Dental Colleges then the name of such
candidate shall be considered on the basis of merit. It has further
been submitted that if the petitioners were not satisfied with the
seat offered to them in the first round of counselling, they should
have submitted their option under Rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules.
In support of her submissions learned senior counsel has placed
reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Subodh Nautiyal (Dr)
Vs. State of U.P., (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 593, State of U.P. vs.
Anupam Gupta (Dr), (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 594, Arvind Kumar
Kankane vs. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 355, Medical Council
of India vs. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258, Mridul Dhar
(minor) and another vs. Union of India and others, (2005 ) 2
SCC 65, Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India, (2009) 2 ILR 1263,
Shafali Nandwani vs. State of Haryana and others, (2002) 8
9
SCC 152 and Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka
and others, (1998) 6 SCC 131.
13. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. In
order to test the validity of the rules in question, it would be useful
to first examine the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and
Regulations. The Parliament enacted the 1956 Act to provide for
reconstitution of Medical Council of India and maintenance of
Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith.
The 1956 Act came into force on 1st of November, 1958. Section 20
of 1956 Act provides that Council may prescribe standards of Post
Graduate Medical Education for guidance of the Universities and
may advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards
for Post Graduate Medical Education throughout India. Section 33
of 1956 Act empowers the Council to make Regulations for
conducting of professional examinations, qualifications of the
examinations and the conditions of admission to such
examinations. In exercise of powers under Section 33 read with
Section 20 of 1956 Act, the Medical Council of India with the
previous approval of the Central Government has framed
Regulations called as Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2000.
14. Regulation 9 of the Regulations read as under:-
"Regulation 9. Selection of Post
Graduate Students.
1. Students for Post Graduate Medical
Courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of
their academic merit
2. For determining the academic merit, the
university/institution may adopt any one of the
following procedures both for degree and
diploma courses:-
i. On the basis of merit as determined by the
competitive test conducted by the State
10
Government or by the competent authority
appointed by the State Government or by the
university/group of universities in the same
state; or
ii. On the basis of merit as determined by a
centralized competitive test held at the national
level; or
iii On the basis of the individual cumulative
performance at the first, second and their MBBS
examination, if such examination have been
passed from the same university; or
iv. Combination of (i) and (iii):
Provided that wherever entrance test for
Postgraduate admission is held by the State
Government or a university or any other
authorized examining body, the minimum
percentage of marks for eligibility for admission
to postgraduate medical courses shall be fifty
per cent for general category candidates and 40
per cent for the candidate belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Backward classes.
Provided further that in non-Governmental
institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall
be filled by the competent authority and the
remaining fifty percent by the management of
the institution on the basis of merit.”
15. Now, we may refer to rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules the
validity of which is mainly challenged on the ground that the
same is violative of Regulation 9 which prescribes a criteria
for placement in merit list strictly on the basis of academic
merit. The 2010 Rules are framed by the State Government
for the purpose of holding entrance test of 2010 for Post
Graduate Medical (MD & MS) Course, Post Graduate
Diploma and Dental (MDS) Courses in Medical and Dental
Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 1.19 of the
2010 Rules provides about the preparation of merit list. The
validity of sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 1.19 of the 2010 Rules alone
11
has been challenged. The provisions contained in Rule 1.19
of the 2010 Rules reads as under:
Rule 1.19 Merit List:-
(2) Inter se merit
In case two or more candidates obtaining equal
marks in the entrance examination, the merit will
be decided as per procedure indicated below:-
(a) A Candidate who scores more marks in
Part ‘B” of the question paper will be kept higher
in merit.
(b) Candidates scoring equal marks even in
part “B” of the question paper, then candidate
older in age will be placed higher in inter se
merit of such candidates.”
16. No doubt from a reading of the provisions contained in
Regulation 9.1 of Regulations it would appear that it provides
admission in the Post Graduate medical courses strictly on
the basis of the academic merit. Regulation 9.2 of
Regulations provides modes for determining the academic
merit. It further provides that the university or the institution
may adopt any one of the modes mentioned in Clause i to iv
of the Regulation 9.2. Regulation 9.2.ii of Regulations
provides that academic merit of candidates may be assessed
by a centralized competitive test held at the national level.
Thus, Pre. P.G. Test is held in accordance with the
Regulation 9.2.ii of the Regulations. Since the candidates
who appear in the Pre. P.G. Examination come from different
universities and different backgrounds, therefore, the
Common Entrance Test is held with the object to create a
level playing field for the candidates to adjudge their inter se
merit. A close scrutiny of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules
reveals that in case two or more candidates obtain equal
marks then the merit has to be decided firstly on the basis of
marks secured by candidate in part “B” of the question paper
12
i.e. the candidate who secured more marks in part ‘B’ of the
question paper has to be kept higher in merit. However, if
both the candidates secured equal marks even in part “B” of
the question paper then the candidates older in age is placed
higher in inter se merit. The age of candidate is prescribed as
the last criteria for placement in merit, not the first criteria, as
the first criteria is the marks obtained by a candidate in Part
‘B’ examination. From perusal of the rules framed by several
institution/States which have been relied upon by the
petitioners themselves we find that candidates have to be
given preference on the basis of age if they secure equal
marks. For instance, we may refer to Clause 12.2.C of the
Rules framed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences which
provides that if candidates obtain equal marks in the
examination, the candidate older in age would get
preference. Similarly, the Rules framed by PGI Chandigarh
annexed as Annexure-P-14 also contain similar provision.
Same provision exists in the Rules framed by State of
Karnataka as well as Banaras Hindu University. Therefore, it
appears that in all the Entrance Examination Rules framed by
various authorities, age has been made the basis for granting
preference in case candidates secure equal marks.
Therefore, the same appears to be a reasonable and
acceptable criteria. That apart, we have no reason or
justification to hold that the age which has been made one of
the criteria where merit being equal could be held to be
unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, it could be safely
held to be valid and reasonable for determining the inter se
merit where candidates secure equal marks. Thus, the
challenge to the aforesaid rule is misconceived and cannot
be sustained. The contention that the marks obtained in
MBBS examination should have been made a criteria can
also not be accepted as same would defeat the very object of
13
holding the Common Entrance Test. Besides that,
Regulation 9 of the Regulations prescribes four different
modes or procedure for determining the academic merit. One
of the mode or procedure to determine the academic merit is
by holding Common Entrance Test. Therefore, where the
Common Entrance Test is held for determining the academic
merit, the marks obtained in different examinations of
M.B.B.S. become irrelevant as merit of all the candidates,
who appear in the examination, are adjudged by applying
uniform criteria. It is matter of common knowledge that the
standard of education varies from Institution to Institution,
University to University and State to State. There may be a
situation that both the candidates have passed the M.B.B.S.
from the same college but it would be exception to the
general rule and that cannot be a basis to hold the rule
invalid.
17. For yet another reason challenge to the validity of rule
1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules cannot be sustained as
challenge to validity of the rule can be entertained only where
it is found that the impugned rule suffers from any legal
infirmity, being wholly beyond the scope of the rule making
power or being inconsistent with any of the provision of the
parent Act or amounts to infraction of any provision of the
Constitution. Our view find support from the judgment of the
apex court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another
Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc., AIR 1984 SC
1543. In para 29 of the judgment the apex court has held that
the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to
academic matters in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of educational
14
institutions and the departments controlling them. The apex
court further observed in para 29 that it would be wholly
wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic
approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the
actual realities and grass root problems involved in the
working of the system and unmindful of the consequences
which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to
a pragmatic one, were to be propounded. The apex court
further cautioned that the court should as far as possible
avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision,
rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of
rendering the system unworkable in practice. In the case in
hand learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out
such infirmity in the impugned Rules. Therefore, in view of
the above exposition of law made by the apex court, rule
1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules cannot be held to be arbitrary or
unreasonable.
18. Now, we may advert to the challenge made to the validity of
Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules which provides that if a
candidate has already been allotted a seat in the first round
of counselling he would be prohibited for participating in the
second round of counselling. The validity of similar Rule was
under consideration before the Supreme Court in Arvind
Kumar Kankane vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2001 SC
2800. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of the report while
upholding the validity of rule has held as follows:-
“4……….we are of the view that the
finding recorded by the Division Bench and
Delhi High Court in Dr. Veena Gupta’s case
(AIR 1994 Delhi 108 (supra) and the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain’s case [1998
(3) ESC 2016] is in accordance with the reason
and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that
once an option is exercised by a candidate on
the basis of which he is allotted the subject and
15
thereafter that candidate is allowed to
participate in subsequent counselling and his
seat become vacant, the process of counselling
will be endless and, as apprehended by the
High Court, it may not be possible to complete
the academic course within the stipulated
period.”
19. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, Division Bench of
this Court in Arun Singh Yadav (supra) upheld the validity
of Regulation 9.9. of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate
Entrance Examination Rules, 2006, which is in para materia
with Rule 1.20 (16) of 2010 Rules.
20. The Supreme Court in Mabel (supra) while considering
clause (18) of Information Brochure of Kurukshetra University
which provided that candidate already admitted in Medical or
Dental College will not be considered eligible for admission to
courses held in paragraph 5 as under:-
“5. A plain reading of the aforementioned
clause shows that a candidate who was already
admitted in a medical or dental college would be
ineligible for admission in the other course. The
said clause at times will operate harshly as in
the case of the petitioner but it is meant to
ensure that a candidate who has already
secured admission should not abandon the
studies after the commencement of that course
to seek admission in another course which is in
public interest, for otherwise it would result in
the wastage of the seta in the course in which
he has taken admission, and further, such a
change would deprive another eligible candidate
from seeking admission to the other course.
Obviously, the intention of the authority
concerned in framing clause 18 appears to be to
ensure that a candidate who has already
secured admission with his free will in any
course (MBBS or BDS) should complete that
course and should not change his mind in
midstream. It, therefore, follows that the bar is
intended to be operative during the period of the
16
course in which a candidate has taken
admission………..”
21. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
decision Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal (supra) is of no
assistance. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was
dealing with Rule 2.2.3 of the Rules contained Information
Brochure of Preference System for Admissions to Health
Science Courses of Maharashtra which required the
competent authority to follow the preference system for
admission for allotment of seats not only in the first round of
counselling of admission but also in each round of admission.
While considering the said Rule the Supreme Court observed
that firstly merit of the candidate is to be considered and then
preference exercised by him while allotting the seat has to be
considered. Thus, for the aforementioned reason the decision
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no
assistance in the facts and circumstances of this case.
22. Besides that, if a candidate is not willing to take admission to
any of the subject courses available at the time of his/her
counselling, it would be open for him/her to give option in
writing and to “opt for waiting”, as provided under rule
1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules. Rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules
reads as under :
“1.20(15) : If any candidate who does not wish to be
admitted to any of the subjects/courses available at the
time of her/his counselling, he/she may give “opt for
waiting” option in writing and his/her name will be placed
in order of merit. If any seat fall vacant on or before 31st
May, 2010, in any Medical/Dental Colleges in any subject,
the name of such candidate shall be considered on the
basis of merit at the time of allotment of vacancies arising
due to any reason for admission of the said category.”
17
Therefore, in view of the above provision, rule 1.20(16) of the
2010 Rules cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable
because if a candidate exercises option under rule 1.20(15) of the
2010 Rules and has given option “opt for waiting” in writing, his/her
name will be placed in order of merit. In the event of any vacancy
candidature of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of
merit.
23. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons and in view of the
aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court as well as
by Division Bench of this Court, we upheld the validity of Rule
1.20(16) of 2010 Rules. Consequently, the challenge to
validity of this rule also must fail.
24. For yet another reason, no relief can be granted to the
petitioners. Regulation 10A of Regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India which have statutory force provides
that duration of P.G. Course shall be of three years. P.G.
course has already commenced from 1st July, 2010. In
Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka (supra)
the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 held as follows:-
“29. A medical student requires grueling study
and that can be done only if proper facilities are
available in a medical college and the hospital
attached to it has to be well equipped and the
teaching faculty and doctors have to be
competent enough that when a medical student
comes out, he is perfect in the science of
treatment of human beings and is not found
wanting in any way. The country does not want
half-baked medical professionals coming out of
medical colleges when they did not have full
facilities of teaching and were not exposed to
the patients and their aliments during the course
of their study.”
25. Similarly, in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh
(supra) (2002) 7 SCC 258 as well as in Shafali Nandwani
18
vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) and Mridul Dhar
(Minor) and another vs. Union of India and others (supra)
the Supreme Court has emphasized the need to strictly
adhere to time schedule and has observed that there should
not be midstream admissions. In Mridul Dhar (supra) the
Supreme Court has held that time schedule prescribed for
grant of admission to P.G. vourses shall be strictly adhered
to.
26. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any
merit in all the three petitions. We, therefore, dismiss the
same but without cost.
(S.R.Alam) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
RM/YS/HS
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 8337/2010
Dr.Pooja Mathur.................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others.............................. Respondents
Writ Petition No.9619/2010
Dr.Ritu Agrawal............................................ Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others................................ Respondents
Writ Petition No.6321/2010
Dr.Sambit Pradhan and others........................ Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and others............................... Respondents
O R D E R for consideration
Chief Justice
19
__/10/2010
HON. SHRI ALOK ARADHE J
JUDGE
__/10/2010
ORDER
Post for : __/10/2010
Chief Justice
__/10/2010