(1)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.4964/2010
Dr.Ashish Raj Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. & Others Respondents
Shri Arpan Pawar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General
for respondents.
Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arun Mishra
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sushma Shrivastava
O R D E R
( 28.4.2010)
As per Arun Mishra, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
assailing the constitutional validity of Rule 1.9(1)(c) of M.P.
Medical & Dental Post Graduate Entrance Examination Rules,
2010 {hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2010}. The rule
provides that in-service candidates who have done post
graduation in one subject {degree/diploma} will not be eligible
for admission in another subject. It is submitted in the petition
that the petitioner completed the MBBS course in the year
1999; thereafter he joined the course of diploma in Obstetrics &
Gynecology in the year 2004. He has been appointed as
Assistant Surgeon through PSC on 24.9.2003. He joined the
services on 28.5.2004. He has served in the rural area. The
petitioner was shown to be qualified in post graduate entrance
test 2010, counselling started from 3.4.2010. The State
Government has issued a sponsorship certificate dated 3.4.2010
which restricted the petitioner to opt for only Obstetrics &
Gynecology on the ground that the petitioner is holding diploma
in the same subject. The petitioner has submitted that
restriction imposed is unreasonable & arbitrary. Rule 1.9(1)(c)
of the Rules of 2010 is unreasonable, arbitrary and
discriminatory. There is no logic behind it. In cases of other
(2)
candidates, the rule has been relaxed on earlier occasions. The
said rule deserves to be struck down.
2. Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that Rule 1.9(1)(c) of the Rules of 2010
imposes unreasonable restriction by restricting the post
graduation in the same subject in which diploma or degree is
held. The rule illegally interferes in right to obtain education in
the subject of the choice of the petitioner hence, the same is
ultra vires. He has also submitted that on earlier occasions, the
rule has been relaxed and permission has been given to certain
incumbents to undertake different course than the diploma or
degree which was held by them. The petitioner has been
discriminated with.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the
petition. Rule 1.9(1)(c) of the Rules of 2010 is quoted below:-
“(c) The in-service candidates, who have done Post
Graduation in one subject (degree/diploma) will not
be eligible for admission in another subject.”
4. Admittedly, the petitioner holds the diploma in
Obstetrics & Gynecology. Thus, as per the aforesaid rule, he can
undertake the MS course in Obstetrics & Gynecology. He cannot
opt for other stream of post graduation course. The rule
contains reasonable restriction and cannot be said to be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be
said to be arbitrary or unreasonable provision. In case a person
is having degree or diploma in a particular subject, he becomes
the expert of that subject and he is known for that expertise.
One cannot be expected to be expert of several subjects. A
person of medicine cannot claim that he should be permitted to
undertake post graduation course in surgery or vice versa.
Similar is the case with other subjects. The restriction which has
been imposed is considering the expertise gained while
obtaining degree/diploma. It is open for the petitioner to
undertake the degree course in the same subject in which he
(3)
holds the diploma. The restriction imposed is in consonance
with the requirement of the medical field which requires expert
of a particular field. It is unknown to the medical science that a
person is having the post graduation degree of medicine and
surgery or that of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the same time. It
would defeat the very concept of expertise to be obtained while
doing degree/diploma course in a particular subject. The rule
intends that a person should become the expert of the subject
which is known to him for which he has already acquired the
skill by pursuing degree/diploma course.
5. Thus, the restriction which has been imposed
cannot be said to be unconstitutional in any manner. Striving
towards the excellence in a particular field is the fundamental
duty of incumbent which has found expression under Article 51-
A of the Constitution of India which is the underlying idea of
Rule 1.9(1)(c) of the Rules of 2010. Thus, the rule cannot be said
to be violative of any of the right of the petitioner.
6. Coming to the submission raised by the
petitioner’s counsel that the rule has been relaxed in certain
other cases, however, the counsel was unable to point out any
rule providing the relaxation to the extent claimed by the
petitioner. In case there was any violation of the rule earlier, the
petitioner cannot claim that he has been discriminated with. The
plea of discrimination is available in cases of equality before
law not for violating the rule and the provisions of law. Equality
cannot be claimed so as to met out illegal treatment which is
not permissible under the provisions of law.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no
merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
{Arun Mishra} {Smt.Sushma Shrivastava}
Judge Judge