IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26/07/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
WRIT PETITION NO.11452 of 2002
and
W.M.P.No.15459 of 2002
Dr.Bhavana Bais ... Petitioner
-VS-
1.Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010
2.The Secretary, Selection Committee
(PG Diploma/Degree/Five Year M.Ch.
(Neuro-Surgery) Courses,
162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010
3.State of Tamilnadu, rep.,by
the Secretary to Government,
Health Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents.
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue writ of mandamus as stated therein.
!For petitioner ...Mr.R.Srinivasan
^For respondents ...Mr.V.R.Rajasekar-Spl.GP.
:ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though
the matter is listed for considering the Miscellaneous Petition No.15459 of
2002, since the very same question is involved and the question is covered by
the decision of the Supreme Court, on consent of both counsel, the main writ
petition itself is taken up for disposal.
2.The petitioner has completed her M.B.B.S.course in
December,1999 from the Coimbatore Medical College, which is affiliated to the
Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.University. Though the petitioner hails from Gwalior, he
had joined the Coimbatore Medical College on the basis of All India test,
which is held for 15% of the seats in all the Medical Colleges in the Country.
After completion of her M.B.B.S. Course, the petitioner was a candidate for
the admission to PG Degree/Diploma/Five Year M.Ch. (Neuro-Surgery) Courses.
She was allowed to appear for the examination on the basis of the interim
order of this court. But her results have not been published. The objection
of the respondents relates to question of nativity certificate of the
petitioner and since the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Tamilnadu,
it appears that the authorities are not considering the question of admission
of the petitioner.
3.The question now raised relating to nativity certificate is
covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in DR.PRACHI ALMEIDA vs.
DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS (2001)7 Supreme Court Cases 640). The
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision filed, upholding the eligibility
criterian, it was observed that such criteria relating to residents in a
particular State, should not be made applicable to students, who have
completed M.B.B.S. Course outside the home State on the basis of 15% of All
India Quota. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court decision as
contended in paragraphs 4,7 and 8 are extracted hereunder:-
“4.We have to balance the interests of the students who had secured admission
into the under graduate medical course on the basis of an all-India
competition and the local students. In such cases, there is reservation at
the graduate level and 15% of seats are to be filled by the common entrance
examination on all-India basis, rest of the 85 % seats to be filled by holding
entrance examination at the State level. In 15% seats filled on all-India
basis, students from one State have to migrate dehors their own choice to
other States allotted to them for pursuing MBBS course on account of
compulsions arising out of the enforcement of the said scheme. Eighteen
States and Union Territories, apart from Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh,
provide postgraduate medical courses by pooling 25% seats to be filled on
allIndia basis by a common entrance examination conducted by All India
Institute of Medical Sciences. All MBBS qualified students can compete for
admission without any restriction in this 25% quota and for filling the
remaining 75% seats in postgraduate courses the States or Union Territories
have adopted institutional preference, while some others, residential
preference.
7.In the present case, we do not propose to examine the larger
question of attaining uniformity in all postgraduate courses all over the
country since we are not in a position to state on the material before us
whether the institutional preference criteria adopted by a State or
requirement of residence or both fully complies with the various decisions of
this court adverted to by us in Dr.Parag Gupta case. We, therefore, think, it
would be appropriate for the States concerned to achieve uniformity by
adopting either institutional or residential preference in terms of the
decisions of this court.
8.The petitioner having been selected in the 15% all-India quota,
allowed to study in the State of Goa, obtained graduation. We do not think,
her case should be ignored on the basis of non-fulfilment of residential
requirement. The students falling under the 15% all-India quota should be
allowed to participate to compete in the State where they studied irrespective
of the rule of residence. The argument of unfair advantage does not appeal to
us as all students have to attain a common standard with reference to the
State in which they studied and the number of students of this nature will be
very small. Out of students admitted in medical colleges in the State out of
the 15% all-India quota, on completion of studies, many may prefer to return
to their home State or take 25% all-India quota entrance examination and some
others may not make necessary grade to compete with the local students. If
they are also allowed to participate in the entrance test for admission to
postgraduate medical courses, it will not disturb the balance to any extent
but, on the other hand, achieve uniformity to an extent. This principle we
have evolved on the dictates of necessity and the need for adjusting equities
in the matter of fair and proper implementation of the scheme evolved for
providing a quota of seats to be filled up on all-India basis of merit
performance in the background we have set out above.”
4.Keeping in view of the aforesaid decision, it is directed
that the candidature of the petitioner should be considered on merit and steps
for admission should be taken, if she is otherwise found eligible. However,
it is made clear that the fact that the petitioner is not a permanent resident
of Tamilnadu, she will not be considered as a ground for refusing admission.
It is therefore directed that the result of the petitioner should be published
and if it is found that the petitioner has secured required marks, she should
be called for counselling and she should be admitted in the prescribed course.
This exercise should be completed within two weeks from today. It is also
made clear that the petitioner would be considered, if she is eligible and
found fit within the zone of consideration. With the above directions, this
writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, no order is necessary in
W.M.P.No.15459 of 2002 and the same is closed.
26.7.2002
Office to note:-
Issue a copy of this
order by 29.7.2002.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
tsv.
To
1.Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010
2.The Secretary, Selection Committee
(PG Diploma/Degree/Five Year M.Ch.
(Neuro-Surgery) Courses,
162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010
3.State of Tamilnadu, rep.,by
the Secretary to Government,
Health Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009
P.K.MISRA,J.
W.P.No.11452 of 2002 &
connected WMP.