{"id":121546,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-28T14:27:41","modified_gmt":"2016-08-28T08:57:41","slug":"dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\n               PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                   Writ Petition No. 8337\/2010\n\nDr.Pooja Mathur....................................                       Petitioner\n                          Versus\nState of M.P. and others..............................                Respondents\n\n    For the petitioner :    Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Counsel\n                            with Shri Abhijit Dave, Advocate\n\n    For the respondents:    Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional\n    No.1 to 4               Advocate General\n\n    For the respondent :    Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate\n    No.5.\n\n    For the respondent :    Smt.Indira Nair, Senior Counsel with\n    No.6                    Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate\n\n\n                   Writ Petition No.9619\/2010\n\nDr.Ritu Agrawal............................................                   Petitioner\n                          Versus\nState of M.P. and others................................              Respondents\n\n    For the petitioner :    Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate\n\n    For the respondents:    Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional\n    No.1 to 3               Advocate General\n\n\n                   Writ Petition No.6321\/2010\n\nDr.Sambit Pradhan and others........................              Petitioners\n                           Versus\nState of M.P. and others...............................               Respondents\n\n    For the petitioners :   Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate\n\n    For the respondents:    Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional\n    No.1 & 2                Advocate General\n\n    For the respondent :    Smt.Indira Nair, Senior Counsel with\n    No.6                    Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate\n\n    =========================================\n                                             2\n\n\n\n\nPresent:       Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri S.R.Alam\n               Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                      ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                                    (29\/10\/2010)<\/p>\n
As per: S. R. Alam, Chief Justice<\/p>\n
       In Writ Petition No.8337\/2010 the petitioner has questioned
\nthe validity of the provisions contained in Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule
\n1.20(16) of M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course
\nEntrance Examination Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\n2010 Rules’) whereas in W.P. No.6321\/2010 the petitioner has
\nchallenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules.
\nHowever, in Writ Petition No.9619\/2010 though the validity of the
\nrules has not been specifically challenged but the point in issue of
\nthis petition is interlinked with the controversy involved in Writ
\nPetition No.8337\/2010 and, therefore, this Court vide order dated
\n17.8.2010 directed the petition to be listed along with Writ Petition
\nNo.8337\/2010.          This is how all the three petitions were heard
\ntogether and are being disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
2.     In Writ Petition No.8337\/2010 the petitioner, inter alia, has
\nchallenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of the
\n2010 Rules. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant
\nadmission in M.S. Gynaecology to the petitioner against the seat
\nwhich is kept vacant vide order dated 23.6.2010 passed by Indore
\nBench of this Court. The petitioner has also sought a direction to
\nrespondents No.1 to 4 to allow her to participate in the second
\nround of counselling. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that
\npetitioner has obtained M.B.B.S. degree with four gold medals. She
\nas well as respondent No.5 appeared in Pre P.G. Test, 2010,
\nconducted by the respondent No.2 in which the petitioner and
\nrespondent No.5 got equal marks i.e. 151 out of 200. It is relevant
\nto mention here that in Part-B of the examination also the petitioner
\nand respondent No.5 secured equal marks. Though the petitioner
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
as well as respondent No.5 secured equal marks, yet the
\nrespondent No.5 was placed at Sr. No.58 in the merit list, whereas
\nthe petitioner was placed at Sr.No.61 in the merit list on the sole
\nground that respondent No.5 is older in age. One Dr. Neha
\nSharma, who had also appeared in Pre P.G. test, filed a writ
\npetition, namely, W.P.No.3565\/2010. In the said writ petition Indore
\nBench of this Court vide interim order dated 06.4.2010 directed that
\none seat in M.S. Gynaecology shall be kept vacant till next date of
\nhearing. The respondent No.5 who had participated in Pre. P.G.
\ncounselling could not get the seat in M.S. Gynaecology, therefore,
\nshe opted for a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics (for
\nshort ‘DGO’) in M.P. quota and obtained admission. She had also
\nappeared in All India Entrance Examination. In All India quota
\nseats also she could secure a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology.
\nThus, the respondent No.5 obtained seat in DGO in M.P. quota as
\nwell as in All India quota. The respondent No.5 after getting
\nadmission in diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics
\nsubmitted her resignation from the seat in DGO of M.P. quota.
\nHowever, by suppressing the aforesaid fact she filed a writ petition,
\nnamely, W.P. No. 6092\/2010 in which a relief was claimed that she
\nbe permitted to appear in the second round of counselling.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma and
\nrespondent No.5 came up for hearing before Indore Bench of this
\nCourt on 20.5.2010. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha
\nSharma was dismissed whereas the writ petition preferred by
\nrespondent No.5, Dr. Ritu Agrawal, was disposed of with a
\ndirection to permit her to appear in second round of counselling for
\na seat in M.S. Gynaecology. It is averred that respondent No.5 was
\nnot entitled to appear in second round of counselling. In the
\naforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner of W.P.No.8337\/2010 has
\nchallenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules which
\nprovides that if two candidates secure equal marks even in Part B
\nof the question paper, the candidate older in age will be placed
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
higher in inter se merit of such candidates. She also challenged the
\nvalidity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which provides that any
\ncandidate who has been allotted a seat in a college\/institution will
\nnot be permitted to participate in the subsequent counselling.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The petitioner in W.P.No.9619\/2010, Dr.Ritu Agrawal, has
\nchallenged the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by a Committee
\nheaded by Director, Medical Education, by which she has been
\nheld to be ineligible to participate in second round of counselling.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Petitioners in W.P.No.6321\/2010 have challenged the validity
\nof Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which prohibits a candidate
\nfrom appearing in the second round of counselling once he\/she is
\nallotted a seat in first round of counselling.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have filed a detailed return in
\nW.P.No.8337\/2010 which has been adopted in W.P.No.9619\/2010
\nand W.P.No.6321\/2010. In the return it is, inter alia, stated that the
\nchallenge putforth by the petitioner to the rules in question is
\nmisconceived. It has been averred that Rule 9.9 of M.P. Medical
\nand Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2006,
\nwhich was in para materia to Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules has
\nbeen held to be intra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in the
\ncase of Arun Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P., ILR [2007] M.P. 178.
\nThus, the challenge to the aforesaid rule is no longer res integra. It
\nhas further been averred that challenge to Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the
\n2010 Rules is also misconceived as the same is not in violation of
\nRegulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations,
\n2000 (in short ‘Regulations’) which has been framed by Medical
\nCouncil of India. The higher age in case of other things being equal
\nis a universally accepted criteria to give preference to selected
\ncandidate. It has further been averred that respondent No.5 was
\nineligible to participate in second round of counselling.\n<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
7.      Respondent No.5 has filed return in W.P.No.8337\/2010 in
\nwhich, inter alia, it is stated that due to interim order passed by this
\nCourt in writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma by which one
\nseat in M.S. Gynaecology was directed to be kept vacant, the
\nrespondent No.5 could not be selected. She under protest and
\nreserving her right for the aforesaid seat opted for seat in DGO in
\nM.P. quota. It has further been averred that contention of the
\npetitioner that respondent No.5 after having submitted her
\nresignation and acceptance of the same, cannot claim a seat in
\nM.S. Gynaecology, is misconceived. It has further been averred
\nthat petitioner as well as respondent No.5 had appeared in second
\nround of counselling for a seat of M.S. Gynaecology, however, the
\ncandidature of respondent No.5 was rejected by a Committee vide
\norder     dated    22.6.2010    which    is    under    challenge     in
\nW.P.No.9619\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
8.      Respondent No.6, Medical Council of India, has filed counter
\naffidavit in which, inter alia, it has been stated that Regulations
\nframed by the Medical Council of India, under the Indian Medical
\nCouncil Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1956 Act’) have
\nstatutory force. It has been averred that the Regulations have been
\nframed by Medical Council of India which prescribe minimum
\neligibility criteria for admission to P.G. courses as well as time
\nschedule for making admissions to P.G. courses. It is not
\npermissible for any University or Medical institute to depart from
\nthe norms with regard to eligibility criteria and time schedule fixed
\nby the Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.\n<\/p>\n
9.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri
\nR.P.Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted
\nthat Section 20 of the 1956 Act empowers the Medical Council of
\nIndia to prescribe standards for Post Graduate Medical Education
\nfor the guidance of Universities. In exercise of powers under
\nSection 33(l) of the 1956 Act, the Medical Council of India has
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
framed Regulations which are known as Post Graduate Medical
\nEducation Regulations, 2000. The aforesaid Regulations have
\nstatutory force as has been held by Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti
\nShrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others<\/a>, AIR 1999 SC 2894,
\nState of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others<\/a>,
\n(2003) 7 SCC 83 and Harish Verma and others vs. Ajay
\nSrivastava and<\/a> another, (2003) 8 SCC 69.           Regulation 9 of
\nRegulations provides that students for Post Graduate Medical
\nCourses shall be selected strictly on the basis of academic merit. It
\nis argued that Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules is ultra vires
\nRegulation 9 of Regulations inasmuch as the same prescribes a
\ncriteria of placement in merit list on the basis of age, in case
\ncandidates secure equal marks. It is contended that aforesaid rule
\nis contrary to Regulation 9 framed by Medical Council of India. It is
\nfurther submitted that Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules in so far as
\nit prohibits a candidate from participating in second round of
\ncounselling merely because he has been allotted a seat in first
\nround of counselling is arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned senior
\ncounsel in this connection has placed reliance on a judgment of the
\nSupreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Sneha
\nSatyanarayan Agrawal and others<\/a>, AIR 2009 SC 323. It is further
\nsubmitted that on 06.4.2010 Indore Bench of this Court by interim
\norder directed that one seat of M.S.Gyneacology shall be kept
\nvacant. Thereafter, on 07.4.2010 the first counselling was held
\nwhereas second counselling was held on 04.6.2010. Therefore,
\nwhen the petitioner appeared in the first round of counselling, seat
\nin M.S. Gyneacology was not available and, therefore, it cannot be
\nsaid that petitioner participated in second round of counselling. It
\nwas further submitted that respondent No.5 having resigned from
\nthe seat of DGO from State quota was ineligible to participate in
\nsecond round of counselling. It is further contended that Division
\nBench of this Court in the case of Arun Singh Yadav vs. State of
\nM.P. and others, 2007 (1) MPHT 325, while dealing with Rule 9.9
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination
\nRules, 2006, did not test the validity of aforesaid Rules on the anvil
\nof Regulation 9 of Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in
\nW.P.No.6321\/2010 while adopting the submissions made by
\nlearned senior counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.8337\/2010, has
\nsubmitted that in all other States the candidates who have
\nparticipated in the first round of counselling are permitted to
\nparticipate in the second round of counselling and, therefore, the
\nMedical Council of India cannot be allowed to contend that the
\ncandidate who has appeared in first round of counselling and has
\nbeen allotted a seat, cannot be permitted to participate in the
\nsecond round of counselling.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General
\nfor respondents No.1, 3 & 4 has submitted that for the purpose of
\ndetermining inter se merit Pre.P.G. Entrance Test is held as
\nstudents come from different universities and from different
\nbackgrounds. In order to bring the candidates at par and to
\ndetermine their inter se merit, Common Entrance Test is held. It
\nhas further been submitted that in all the brochures, which have
\nbeen relied upon by the petitioners, preference has been given on
\nthe basis of age. It has further been submitted that the higher age
\nin case candidates secure equal marks is a universally accepted
\ncriteria to give preference to selected candidate and, therefore,
\nRule 1.19(2)(b) of 2010 Rules is not violative of Regulation 9 of
\nRegulations. It has further been submitted that so far as validity of
\nRule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules is concerned the same is no longer
\nres integra as the Division Bench of this Court in Arun Singh
\nYadav (supra) has already upheld the validity of para materia
\nprovision of aforesaid 2006 Rules. In support of his submissions
\nlearned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on
\ndecisions of Supreme Court in           A.P.   Christians Medical
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
Education Society vs. Government of A.P. and another, (1986)
\n2 SCC 667 and Mabel vs. State of Haryana and others<\/a>, (2002) 6
\nSCC 318.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Smt.Indira Nair, learned senior counsel for Medical Council of
\nIndia has contended that after expiry of dead line fixed by the
\nSupreme Court for admissions in medical course i.e. 30.6.2010, no
\nadmission in Post Graduate Courses can be granted. If any
\ndirection is issued by this Court at this point of time directing that
\nthe petitioners be admitted in any of the Post Graduate Courses
\nthe same would amount to midstream admission which is not
\npermissible in law. She further submitted that merely because a
\nvacancy in a particular course exists, the same cannot be a ground
\nto fill up the seat. Learned senior counsel has drawn our attention
\nto 1.20(15) of 2010 Rules and has submitted that if a candidate
\ndoes not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects\/courses
\navailable at the time of her\/his counselling, he\/she may give “opt
\nfor waiting” option in writing and his\/her name will be placed in
\norder of merit. If any seat falls vacant on or before 31st of May,
\n2010, in any Medical\/Dental Colleges then the name of such
\ncandidate shall be considered on the basis of merit. It has further
\nbeen submitted that if the petitioners were not satisfied with the
\nseat offered to them in the first round of counselling, they should
\nhave submitted their option under Rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules.
\nIn support of her submissions learned senior counsel has placed
\nreliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Subodh Nautiyal (Dr)
\nVs. State of U.P., (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 593, State of U.P. vs.
\nAnupam Gupta (Dr), (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 594, Arvind Kumar
\nKankane vs. State of U.P.,<\/a> (2001) 8 SCC 355, Medical Council
\nof India vs. Madhu Singh,<\/a> (2002) 7 SCC 258, Mridul Dhar
\n(minor) and another vs. Union of India and others, (2005 ) 2
\nSCC 65, Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India, (2009) 2 ILR 1263,
\nShafali Nandwani vs. State of Haryana and others<\/a>, (2002) 8
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
SCC 152 and Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka
\nand others, (1998) 6 SCC 131.\n<\/p>\n
13.   We have considered the submissions made on both sides. In
\norder to test the validity of the rules in question, it would be useful
\nto first examine the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and
\nRegulations. The Parliament enacted the 1956 Act to provide for
\nreconstitution of Medical Council of India and maintenance of
\nMedical Register for India and for matters connected therewith.
\nThe 1956 Act came into force on 1st of November, 1958. Section 20
\nof 1956 Act provides that Council may prescribe standards of Post
\nGraduate Medical Education for guidance of the Universities and
\nmay advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards
\nfor Post Graduate Medical Education throughout India. Section 33
\nof 1956 Act empowers the Council to make Regulations for
\nconducting of professional examinations, qualifications of the
\nexaminations    and     the   conditions      of     admission     to   such
\nexaminations. In exercise of powers under Section 33 read with
\nSection 20 of 1956 Act, the Medical Council of India with the
\nprevious approval of the Central Government has framed
\nRegulations    called   as    Post       Graduate     Medical    Education
\nRegulations, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Regulation 9 of the Regulations read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             \"Regulation 9.              Selection     of   Post\n         Graduate Students.\n\n                1.  Students for Post Graduate Medical\n<\/pre>\n
         Courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of
\n         their academic merit<\/p>\n
         2.    For determining the academic merit, the
\n         university\/institution may adopt any one of the
\n         following procedures both for degree and
\n         diploma courses:-\n<\/p>\n
         i.  On the basis of merit as determined by the
\n         competitive test conducted by the State
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
         Government or by the competent authority
\n         appointed by the State Government or by the
\n         university\/group of universities in the same
\n         state; or<\/p>\n
         ii.    On the basis of merit as determined by a
\n         centralized competitive test held at the national
\n         level; or<\/p>\n
         iii   On the basis of the individual cumulative
\n         performance at the first, second and their MBBS
\n         examination, if such examination have been
\n         passed from the same university; or<\/p>\n
         iv.   Combination of (i) and (iii):\n<\/p>\n
               Provided that wherever entrance test for
\n         Postgraduate admission is held by the State
\n         Government or a university or any other
\n         authorized examining body, the minimum
\n         percentage of marks for eligibility for admission
\n         to postgraduate medical courses shall be fifty
\n         per cent for general category candidates and 40
\n         per cent for the candidate belonging to
\n         Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
\n         Backward classes.\n<\/p>\n
                Provided further that in non-Governmental
\n         institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall
\n         be filled by the competent authority and the
\n         remaining fifty percent by the management of
\n         the institution on the basis of merit.”\n<\/p>\n
15.   Now, we may refer to rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules the
\n      validity of which is mainly challenged on the ground that the
\n      same is violative of Regulation 9 which prescribes a criteria
\n      for placement in merit list strictly on the basis of academic
\n      merit. The 2010 Rules are framed by the State Government
\n      for the purpose of holding entrance test of 2010 for Post
\n      Graduate Medical (MD & MS) Course, Post Graduate
\n      Diploma and Dental (MDS) Courses in Medical and Dental
\n      Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 1.19 of the
\n      2010 Rules provides about the preparation of merit list. The
\n      validity of sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 1.19 of the 2010 Rules alone
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      has been challenged. The provisions contained in Rule 1.19
\n      of the 2010 Rules reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
         Rule 1.19 Merit List:-\n<\/p>\n
         (2) Inter se merit
\n         In case two or more candidates obtaining equal
\n         marks in the entrance examination, the merit will
\n         be decided as per procedure indicated below:-\n<\/p>\n
         (a) A Candidate who scores more marks in
\n         Part ‘B” of the question paper will be kept higher
\n         in merit.\n<\/p>\n
         (b) Candidates scoring equal marks even in
\n         part “B” of the question paper, then candidate
\n         older in age will be placed higher in inter se
\n         merit of such candidates.”\n<\/p>\n
16.   No doubt from a reading of the provisions contained in
\n      Regulation 9.1 of Regulations it would appear that it provides
\n      admission in the Post Graduate medical courses strictly on
\n      the basis of the academic merit.            Regulation 9.2 of
\n      Regulations provides modes for determining the academic
\n      merit. It further provides that the university or the institution
\n      may adopt any one of the modes mentioned in Clause i to iv
\n      of the Regulation 9.2. Regulation 9.2.ii of Regulations
\n      provides that academic merit of candidates may be assessed
\n      by a centralized competitive test held at the national level.
\n      Thus, Pre. P.G. Test is held in accordance with the
\n      Regulation 9.2.ii of the Regulations. Since the candidates
\n      who appear in the Pre. P.G. Examination come from different
\n      universities   and   different   backgrounds,   therefore,   the
\n      Common Entrance Test is held with the object to create a
\n      level playing field for the candidates to adjudge their inter se
\n      merit. A close scrutiny of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules
\n      reveals that in case two or more candidates obtain equal
\n      marks then the merit has to be decided firstly on the basis of
\n      marks secured by candidate in part “B” of the question paper
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
i.e. the candidate who secured more marks in part ‘B’ of the
\nquestion paper has to be kept higher in merit. However, if
\nboth the candidates secured equal marks even in part “B” of
\nthe question paper then the candidates older in age is placed
\nhigher in inter se merit. The age of candidate is prescribed as
\nthe last criteria for placement in merit, not the first criteria, as
\nthe first criteria is the marks obtained by a candidate in Part
\n‘B’ examination. From perusal of the rules framed by several
\ninstitution\/States which have been relied upon by the
\npetitioners themselves we find that candidates have to be
\ngiven preference on the basis of age if they secure equal
\nmarks. For instance, we may refer to Clause 12.2.C of the
\nRules framed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences which
\nprovides that if candidates obtain equal marks in the
\nexamination,        the   candidate   older     in   age   would   get
\npreference. Similarly, the Rules framed by PGI Chandigarh
\nannexed as Annexure-P-14 also contain similar provision.
\nSame provision exists in the Rules framed by State of
\nKarnataka as well as Banaras Hindu University. Therefore, it
\nappears that in all the Entrance Examination Rules framed by
\nvarious authorities, age has been made the basis for granting
\npreference     in     case   candidates       secure   equal   marks.
\nTherefore, the same appears to be a reasonable and
\nacceptable criteria. That apart, we have no reason or
\njustification to hold that the age which has been made one of
\nthe criteria where merit being equal could be held to be
\nunreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, it could be safely
\nheld to be valid and reasonable for determining the inter se
\nmerit where candidates secure equal marks.                 Thus, the
\nchallenge to the aforesaid rule is misconceived and cannot
\nbe sustained. The contention that the marks obtained in
\nMBBS examination should have been made a criteria can
\nalso not be accepted as same would defeat the very object of
\n                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
      holding the Common Entrance Test.               Besides that,
\n      Regulation 9 of the Regulations prescribes four different
\n      modes or procedure for determining the academic merit. One
\n      of the mode or procedure to determine the academic merit is
\n      by holding Common Entrance Test. Therefore, where the
\n      Common Entrance Test is held for determining the academic
\n      merit, the marks obtained in different examinations of
\n      M.B.B.S. become irrelevant as merit of all the candidates,
\n      who appear in the examination, are adjudged by applying
\n      uniform criteria. It is matter of common knowledge that the
\n      standard of education varies from Institution to Institution,
\n      University to University and State to State. There may be a
\n      situation that both the candidates have passed the M.B.B.S.
\n      from the same college but it would be exception to the
\n      general rule and that cannot be a basis to hold the rule
\n      invalid.\n<\/p>\n
17.   For yet another reason challenge to the validity of rule
\n      1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules cannot be sustained as
\n      challenge to validity of the rule can be entertained only where
\n      it is found that the impugned rule suffers from any legal
\n      infirmity, being wholly beyond the scope of the rule making
\n      power or being inconsistent with any of the provision of the
\n      parent Act or amounts to infraction of any provision of the
\n      Constitution. Our view find support from the judgment of the
\n      apex court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of
\n      Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another
\n      Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc., AIR 1984 SC
\n      1543. In para 29 of the judgment the apex court has held that
\n      the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
\n      views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to
\n      academic matters in preference to those formulated by
\n      professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
\n      experience of actual day-to-day working of educational
\n                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
      institutions and the departments controlling them. The apex
\n      court further observed in para 29 that it would be wholly
\n      wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic
\n      approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the
\n      actual realities and grass root problems involved in the
\n      working of the system and unmindful of the consequences
\n      which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to
\n      a pragmatic one, were to be propounded. The apex court
\n      further cautioned that the court should as far as possible
\n      avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision,
\n      rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of
\n      rendering the system unworkable in practice. In the case in
\n      hand learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out
\n      such infirmity in the impugned Rules. Therefore, in view of
\n      the above exposition of law made by the apex court, rule
\n      1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules cannot be held to be arbitrary or
\n      unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Now, we may advert to the challenge made to the validity of
\n      Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules which provides that if a
\n      candidate has already been allotted a seat in the first round
\n      of counselling he would be prohibited for participating in the
\n      second round of counselling. The validity of similar Rule was
\n      under consideration before the Supreme Court in Arvind
\n      Kumar Kankane vs. State of U.P. and others<\/a>, AIR 2001 SC
\n      2800. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of the report while
\n      upholding the validity of rule has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “4……….we are of the view that the
\n         finding recorded by the Division Bench and
\n         Delhi High Court in Dr. Veena Gupta’s case
\n         (AIR 1994 Delhi 108 (supra) and the High Court
\n         of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain’s case [1998
\n         (3) ESC 2016] is in accordance with the reason
\n         and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that
\n         once an option is exercised by a candidate on
\n         the basis of which he is allotted the subject and
\n                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
         thereafter that candidate is allowed to
\n         participate in subsequent counselling and his
\n         seat become vacant, the process of counselling
\n         will be endless and, as apprehended by the
\n         High Court, it may not be possible to complete
\n         the academic course within the stipulated
\n         period.”\n<\/p>\n
19.   Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, Division Bench of
\n      this Court in Arun Singh Yadav (supra) upheld the validity
\n      of Regulation 9.9. of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate
\n      Entrance Examination Rules, 2006, which is in para materia
\n      with Rule 1.20 (16) of 2010 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
20.   The Supreme Court in Mabel (supra)          while considering
\n      clause (18) of Information Brochure of Kurukshetra University
\n      which provided that candidate already admitted in Medical or
\n      Dental College will not be considered eligible for admission to
\n      courses held in paragraph 5 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
         “5. A plain reading of the aforementioned
\n         clause shows that a candidate who was already
\n         admitted in a medical or dental college would be
\n         ineligible for admission in the other course. The
\n         said clause at times will operate harshly as in
\n         the case of the petitioner but it is meant to
\n         ensure that a candidate who has already
\n         secured admission should not abandon the
\n         studies after the commencement of that course
\n         to seek admission in another course which is in
\n         public interest, for otherwise it would result in
\n         the wastage of the seta in the course in which
\n         he has taken admission, and further, such a
\n         change would deprive another eligible candidate
\n         from seeking admission to the other course.\n<\/p>\n
         Obviously, the intention of the authority
\n         concerned in framing clause 18 appears to be to
\n         ensure that a candidate who has already
\n         secured admission with his free will in any
\n         course (MBBS or BDS) should complete that
\n         course and should not change his mind in
\n         midstream. It, therefore, follows that the bar is
\n         intended to be operative during the period of the
\n                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
         course in which       a    candidate   has   taken
\n         admission………..”\n<\/p>\n
21.   Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
\n      decision Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal (supra) is of no
\n      assistance. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was
\n      dealing with Rule 2.2.3 of the Rules contained Information
\n      Brochure of Preference System for Admissions to Health
\n      Science Courses of Maharashtra which required the
\n      competent authority to follow the preference system for
\n      admission for allotment of seats not only in the first round of
\n      counselling of admission but also in each round of admission.
\n      While considering the said Rule the Supreme Court observed
\n      that firstly merit of the candidate is to be considered and then
\n      preference exercised by him while allotting the seat has to be
\n      considered. Thus, for the aforementioned reason the decision
\n      relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no
\n      assistance in the facts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
22.   Besides that, if a candidate is not willing to take admission to
\n      any of the subject courses available at the time of his\/her
\n      counselling, it would be open for him\/her to give option in
\n      writing and to “opt for waiting”, as provided under rule
\n      1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules. Rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules
\n      reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
      “1.20(15) : If any candidate who does not wish to be
\n      admitted to any of the subjects\/courses available at the
\n      time of her\/his counselling, he\/she may give “opt for
\n      waiting” option in writing and his\/her name will be placed
\n      in order of merit. If any seat fall vacant on or before 31st
\n      May, 2010, in any Medical\/Dental Colleges in any subject,
\n      the name of such candidate shall be considered on the
\n      basis of merit at the time of allotment of vacancies arising
\n      due to any reason for admission of the said category.”\n<\/p>\n
                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
         Therefore, in view of the above provision, rule 1.20(16) of the
\n2010 Rules cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable
\nbecause if a candidate exercises option under rule 1.20(15) of the
\n2010 Rules and has given option “opt for waiting” in writing, his\/her
\nname will be placed in order of merit. In the event of any vacancy
\ncandidature of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of
\nmerit.\n<\/p>\n
23.      Thus, for the aforementioned reasons and in view of the
\n         aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court as well as
\n         by Division Bench of this Court, we upheld the validity of Rule
\n         1.20(16) of 2010 Rules. Consequently, the challenge to
\n         validity of this rule also must fail.\n<\/p>\n
24.      For yet another reason, no relief can be granted to the
\n         petitioners. Regulation 10A of Regulations framed by the
\n         Medical Council of India which have statutory force provides
\n         that duration of P.G. Course shall be of three years. P.G.
\n         course has already commenced from 1st July, 2010.            In
\n         Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka<\/a> (supra)
\n         the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
            “29. A medical student requires grueling study
\n            and that can be done only if proper facilities are
\n            available in a medical college and the hospital
\n            attached to it has to be well equipped and the
\n            teaching faculty and doctors have to be
\n            competent enough that when a medical student
\n            comes out, he is perfect in the science of
\n            treatment of human beings and is not found
\n            wanting in any way. The country does not want
\n            half-baked medical professionals coming out of
\n            medical colleges when they did not have full
\n            facilities of teaching and were not exposed to
\n            the patients and their aliments during the course
\n            of their study.”\n<\/p>\n
25.      Similarly, in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh<\/a>
\n         (supra) (2002) 7 SCC 258 as well as in Shafali Nandwani
\n                                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
                 vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) and Mridul Dhar
\n                 (Minor) and another vs. Union of India and others (supra)
\n                 the Supreme Court has emphasized the need to strictly
\n                 adhere to time schedule and has observed that there should
\n                 not be midstream admissions. In Mridul Dhar (supra) the
\n                 Supreme Court has held that time schedule prescribed for
\n                 grant of admission to P.G. vourses shall be strictly adhered
\n                 to.\n<\/p>\n
           26.   In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any
\n                 merit in all the three petitions. We, therefore, dismiss the
\n                 same but without cost.\n<\/p>\n
                   (S.R.Alam)                             (Alok Aradhe)\n                   Chief Justice                             Judge\nRM\/YS\/HS\n\n                        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\n                          PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                               Writ Petition No. 8337\/2010\n           Dr.Pooja Mathur....................................                         Petitioner\n                                         Versus\n           State of M.P. and others..............................                  Respondents\n\n                               Writ Petition No.9619\/2010\n\n           Dr.Ritu Agrawal............................................                     Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n           State of M.P. and others................................                Respondents\n\n                               Writ Petition No.6321\/2010\n\n           Dr.Sambit Pradhan and others........................                Petitioners\n                                      Versus\n           State of M.P. and others...............................                 Respondents\n\n\n\n                            O R D E R for consideration\n\n\n                                          Chief Justice\n                             19<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                        __\/10\/2010\n\n\nHON. SHRI ALOK ARADHE J\n\n\n                         JUDGE\n                        __\/10\/2010\n\n\n             ORDER\n\n             Post for : __\/10\/2010\n\n\n                        Chief Justice\n                        __\/10\/2010\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-28T08:57:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-28T08:57:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5066,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-28T08:57:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-28T08:57:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-28T08:57:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":5066,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010","name":"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-28T08:57:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-pooja-mathur-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}