ORDER
1. The following order of the Court was delivered by V. S. Kokje, J.:
2. The petitioner has passed his B.D.S. Examination in the year 1990 and is desirous of admission to a Post-Graduate Course in the Dental College, Indore. The State Government had framed guidelines for admission to the Post-Graduate Course in the College of Dentistry, Indore. These Rules are called ‘the M.P. Selection Rules for Post-Graduation Courses in the College of Dentistry, Indore, 1988. Admissions were given under these Rules. Now on 2-4-1992 New Rules named M.P. Competitive Post-Graduate Entrance Examination for Admission to Medical Courses (M.D./M.S.) & Dental Course (M.D.S.) Rules, have been made. In the Notification dated 31-3-1992 published in the Gazette of M. P. dated 2-4-1992, it is declared that on publication of these rules, M. P. Post-Graduation Rules, 1984, shall become defunct. However, no similar repeal of the 1988 Rules applicable to the Post-Graduate Course, in the College of Dentistry, has been expressed.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 invited applications for filling up the seats in the M.D.S. Course and on completion of formalities, selected respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for grant of admission. The petitioner challenges the grant of these admission on the ground that 1988 Rules for admission have been impliedly repealed by bringing in new Rules in their place and, therefore, admissions cannot be granted to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 this year. According to the petitioner, admissions now can be granted only by a Competitive Examination held in accordance with the new Rules, which have come into force from 2-4-1992.
4. In their return respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have taken a stand that 1988 Rules are still in force and have not been repealed by the 1992 Rules. It has also been contended that the procedure for grant of admissions this year has been finalised and was even completed before the New Rules 1992 were brought into force and as such, the admissions granted to respondents No. 4 & 5 were in order. It is further contended that the 1992 Rules have been framed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court directing that a uniform pattern of Post Graduate Education shall be followed in the Country from 1993. It is contended that the five years period during which the old system would continue would end in September, 1992 and, therefore, till then the 1988 Rules prevail.
5. Having heard Shri S. S. Samvatsar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri T. N. Singh learned Additional Advocate General for respondents Nos. 1 to 3; Shri Dilliwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri M.G. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, we have come to the conclusion that this petition is a result of the confusion created and worst confounded by the Authorities of the State, who have failed to clearly spell-out their policy as regards admissions to the Post Graduate Courses in the year 1992 and thereafter. When we compared the Rules of 1988 with the New Rules of 1992, a clear distinction stands out. In the 1988 Rules Post Graduate Courses in the College of Dentistry were of two years duration after completion of house-job. In the New Rules of 1992 the Post Graduate Courses including M.D.S. Course of three years from the date of admission and the eligibility qualification is completion of compulsory rotating internship or house-job. Thus, under the 1988 Rules only those candidates could be considered under the institutional merit quota, to which all the candidates to this petition claim to belong, who have completed house-job. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed the house-job but was undergoing the same. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered under the 1988 Rules for the Two Years M.D.S. Course. However, after the New Rules came into force from 2-4-1992, the petitioner has become eligible for appearing at the Competative Examination, which is to be held under the New Rules as he has completed his internship after passing B.D.S. Examination. The petitioners therefore, can have grievance as regards the admissions to a three years course for which he is eligible. Admittedly, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have been admitted to a Two Years Course, for which the petitioner is not eligible. There is, therefore no conflict of interest between the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to a Two Years Post Graduate Degree Course, to which they have been admitted is concerned. The petition is, therefore, totally misconceived so far as the challenge to the admissions of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 is concerned.
6. However, the petitioner’s apprehension about the respondents not holding the Examination for Admission to the Three Years Post Graduate Degree Course in the year 1992, seems to be well-founded, especially in view of the return, which has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondents in their return stated that under the directions of the Supreme Court, the new system has to come into force from the year 1993. It seems that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are labouring under a misconception that licence to continue the unconstitutional previous rules has been granted to them by the Supreme Court up to the year 1993. Fortunately this is not so. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (1987) 4 SCC 459 : (AIR 1987 SC 2396) relied upon by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in support of their determination to continue the obvious injustice the earlier rule worked out to the candidates, has been considered by this Court in Dr. Penil Sharadkumar Doshi v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 MP 171. In paragraph 81 of the judgment, their Lordships constituting the Bench referring to the decision in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) observed that a period of three years from the date of the judgment would be more than enough for switching over to new practice or admission. In the context of the entire discussion and looking to the fact that time was given evolving a new pattern of admissions by way of concession alone with due deferance to the difficulties of the examining authorities as well as of the prospective candidates at the examinations, the period fixed by the Court was an outer limit and not a licence for three years to continue illegalities. The State had to switch to the new system as early as possible but not later than three years. This is the real reasonable meaning, which can be given to the directions given in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) and P. S. Doshi’s case (supra) By publishing the new Rules 1992 and making them effective immediately on publication the State has conceded this interpretation has switched over to the new system within a period of three years, taking the directions of the Supreme Court and this Court in their true spirit. Even otherwise, in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case and P. S. Doshi’s case (supra), the petitioner had gone to the Court exposing the unconstitutionality of the Rules and seeking directions to get them quashed. The Court held that the existing rules were unconstitutional but for reasons of necessity granted time to cure the defects. This could in now way create obsructions in the way of the State to cure the defects earlier. The State had, in the circumstances, right to repeal the old rules any time and switch over to a new system. What could be done by the State of its own volition, cannot be challenged on the basis of some directions in some judgments read without context. No one can find fault with this and in fact no one is finding fault with this. There would be no conflict of interests between the previous batches of candidates and the new batch of candidates because the earlier Course was of two years after the house-job and the new Courts is going to be of three years after internship or house job. It is important to note that completion of house-job is not compulsory as an eligibility qualification for taking the competative examination which is going to be held under the 1992 Rules. In other words the one years house-job seems to have been merged with the post graduate course itself and a three years post graduate course is devised. This is a welcome change because earlier candidates were selected for housejob in different departments and it was not predictable as to whether they would get admission in a Post Graduate Course in the same subject in which they had done the house-job. The present system will abolish such an anomaly and since the house-job is included in the Post Graduate Course itself, a candidate will be in the same Department for the entire duration of the Course of three years.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances the contention of the State that admission of the year 1993 onwards only shall be decided on the basis of the New Rules is not only erroneous but it also runs counter to the policy of the State as envisaged by the New Rules, 1992 as well as the timing of their publication. The State has rightly published the rules of 1992, so that candidates can be selected in the year 1992 itself by holding a competative examination. These candidates selected in the year 1992, shall not be required to undergo or complete a separate house-job but will have to under-go a three years Post Graduate Course, which naturally includes one full year which would compensate a house-job. Thus, the candidate selected in the year 1992 shall be admitted to three years degree course in 1992 itself and shall continue to be in that Course for three years, which will end in the year 1995. Those who have been admitted or who would be admitted to a two years degree course after having completed house-job would be completing their course in the year 1994. Thus so far as the passing out of candidates is concerned, there would be no difference. Batch passing M.D.S. Course in 1994, would be the batch which had done two years degree course and the batch which passes in 1995 would be the batch which had undertaken a course of three years. It is even for this reason that we say there is absolutely no conflict of interests between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 would normally pass out in the year 1994 and the petitioner if ultimately he gets admission after successfully competing with others shall normally pass out in the year 1995. This would also not affect teacher taught ratio prescribed by the Dental Council of India/Medical Counsil of India as initial year in the III years Degree Course would be spent on the work which is essentially in the nature of house-job. We, therefore, find that there is no impediment in the State Government arranging and taking an examination for admission to III years M.D.S. Course in the year 1992 itself.
8. Though the respondents have taken a stand that the 1988 Rules have not been repealed and continue to hold the field in view of the action taken by the State itself, we do not feel that the stand can be taken seriously. In para 8 of the petition, the petitioner has contended that after completion of five months house-job, the respondent Nos. 3 refused to extend it after 30th June, 1992 because of the coming into force of the New Rules. The action of the respondent No. 3 is in consonace with the Rules 1992. As the house-job requirement for the admission to three years M.D.S. Course has been done away with. There is no point in selecting candidates for house-job in the year 1992 or in allowing the candidates who have been admitted to house-job to continue the same. This way only the one system of three years M.D.S. Course after completion of internship would prevail and the 1988 Rules governing admissions to two years M.D.S. Course after completion of house-job shall die their own natural death. It appears that for this reasons, if not due to in advertance the 1988 Rules have not been specifically repealed. They shall be repealed in practice because of discontinuation of house-job.
9. An application for intervention (I.A. No. 3175 of 1992) was filed in this case on behalf of Dr. Ashok Khandelwal. At the hearing Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel appearing for the intervener was also heard. Actually, the intervener has nothing to do with these proceedings, his admission being against a seat of a previous year. By order dated 8-5-1992 (Annexure-I-2), the intervever has been granted admission in compliance with the directions issued by the Directorate Medical Education, Bhopal in M.D.S. (Orthodentia) with effect from 1-7-1992 on a vacant seat of the year 1991. None of the parties before us are claiming that seat and we would not have entertained the application but for the reason that the intervener complains that because of the interim orders passed by this Court in this case his admission has also been stayed by the authorities misinterpreting the stay orders passed by this Court or by way of abundant caution. We, therefore, direct that our orders in this case would not have any adverse effect on the admission granted to Dr. Ashok Khandelwal and he shall be admitted to the M.D.S. Course in Orthodentia against the vacant seat of 1991 in 1992 as per order dt. 8-5-92 already passed in his favour (Annexure-III).
10. In the result so far as admission of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to two years M.D.S. Course, we do not find any infirmity in it and we refuse to quash them. We, also direct that the Nos. 1 to 3 shall hold, as soon as possible but not later than three months from today, a competitive examination for admission to three years M.D.S. Course to be started in the year 1992 itself. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. There shall be, however, no orders as to costs. All the interim orders already passed stand vacated. The amount of security costs, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.