{"id":55420,"date":"2001-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001"},"modified":"2016-07-27T13:06:58","modified_gmt":"2016-07-27T07:36:58","slug":"pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Raju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, S.R.Babu<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 7256  of  1999\nAppeal (civil)\t7259\t of  1999\nAppeal (civil)\t7260\t of  1999\nAppeal (civil)\t7263\t of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nPRE-P.G. MEDICAL SANGARSH COMMITTEE &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR. BAJRANG SONI &amp; ORS.\t\t\t\t\t\t      ...\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nDoraiswamy Raju, S.R.Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Raju, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese appeals involve a challenge to the powers as well as the<br \/>\nright of the State Government to provide for reservation of seats for<br \/>\nadmission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for in-service<br \/>\ncandidates and the reasonableness or otherwise of the extent upto<br \/>\nwhich such reservations could be made.\tBefore the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge, challenge was made to the decision of the<br \/>\nGovernment\/University fixing 33% to be the qualifying marks for in-<br \/>\nservice candidates to render them eligible for admission to the Post-<br \/>\nGraduate courses.  The second ground of challenge was to the<br \/>\ndecision of the Government to increase the reservation of seats for<br \/>\nadmission into Post-Graduate courses for in-service candidates from<br \/>\n25% to 50% out of the remaining 75% of the seats after excluding<br \/>\n25% of the seats reserved for central quota.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned Single Judge by his order dated 22.2.1998 repelled<br \/>\nthe challenge based on the first ground and held that the State, which<br \/>\nis authorized to regulate the admissions to Post-Graduate Courses of<br \/>\nMedicine by prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the entrance<br \/>\nexamination therefor, is entitled, as in this case, to fix a minimum of<br \/>\n33% for the in-service candidates, and that this could not be said to<br \/>\nbe illegal.  So far as the second ground of challenge was concerned,<br \/>\nit met with the acceptance of the learned Single Judge, who came to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that there was no justification made by placing<br \/>\nmaterials on record for directing such an increase in the matter of<br \/>\nreservation from 25% to 50% and the same was liable to be set aside<br \/>\nas excessive, while maintaining, at the same time, the earlier<br \/>\nprescribed reservation upto 25%.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAggrieved, the State of Rajasthan as well as some of the in-<br \/>\nservice candidates filed appeals before a Division Bench and the<br \/>\nDivision Bench by its judgment dated 13.7.1999 set aside the order of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge insofar as he interfered with the increase in<br \/>\nthe percentage of reservation made for in-service candidates from<br \/>\n25% to 50% on the ground that not only the State had such powers to<br \/>\nprescribe, on such matters as a matter of policy, but the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge, who sustained such powers to inhere in the State,<br \/>\ncould not have interfered with the policy-decision of the State<br \/>\nGovernment necessitating such increase from 25% to 50% for in-<br \/>\nservice candidates for admission to Post-Graduate courses in the<br \/>\nMedical Colleges of the State, particularly when the policy-decision<br \/>\nwas based on reasons which had nexus to the objects sought to be<br \/>\nachieved.  In the light of the above, the Division Bench thought it<br \/>\nunnecessary to examine further whether the increase of seats from<br \/>\n25% to 50% for in-service candidates pertains to the area of<br \/>\nreservation or fixing the source of admission.\tThe appeals were<br \/>\naccepted and allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHence, the above appeals by the petitioners before the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge and others permitted to file appeal by this Court.\t Heard<br \/>\nlearned counsel on either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe very question was considered by this Court in a decision<br \/>\nreported in State of Tamil Nadu vs T. Dhilipkumar &amp; Ors. (1995(5)<br \/>\nSCALE 208) and it was held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4. In so far as the additional mark awarded to<br \/>\nin-service candidates serving in rural areas is<br \/>\nconcerned, the judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/41277\/\">Dr.<br \/>\nDinesh Kumar &amp; Ors vs Motilal Nehru<br \/>\nMedical College,<\/a> (1986(3) SCR 345) is the<br \/>\nanswer to the argument that in-service<br \/>\ncandidates serving in rural areas will, after<br \/>\nacquisition of post-graduate degrees, return to<br \/>\nrural areas.  The observations in this behalf<br \/>\nhave been cited by the High Court and in our<br \/>\nview, rightly.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In our view, the High Court was right in the<br \/>\nview that it took, that no reservation beyond<br \/>\nfifty per cent is ordinarily contemplated and<br \/>\nthis percentage is what the High Court<br \/>\nallowed.  In striking down the additional mark<br \/>\nfor in-service candidates serving in rural<br \/>\nareas, the High Court followed the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn Ajay Kumar Singh And Others vs State of Bihar And<br \/>\nOthers (1994(4) SCC 401), this Court held that the Indian Medical<br \/>\nCouncil Act, 1956 did not empower the Council to regulate or<br \/>\nprescribe qualifications or conditions for admission to Post-Graduate<br \/>\ncourses and that regulation and admission to such Medical courses is<br \/>\nnot only incidental but an integral part of the power of the States,<br \/>\nwhich establish and maintain such institutions out of public funds and<br \/>\nthe State could always regulate the admission policy while adhering<br \/>\nto the standards determined by the Medical Council.  The learned<br \/>\nJudges, who delved into the matter at length, also highlighted the vital<br \/>\nfact that mere academic performance is no guarantee of efficiency in<br \/>\npractice in the field of medicine and consequently, it is wrong to<br \/>\npresume that a doctor with good academic record is bound to prove a<br \/>\nbetter doctor in practice.  In yet another decision reported in K.<br \/>\nDuraisamy and Anr. etc. etc. vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.<br \/>\n[2001(2) SCC 538 = JT 2001(2) SC 48], though rendered in the<br \/>\ncontext of working out the reservations and the manner stipulated<br \/>\ntherefor, by the Government, the very question about the power of<br \/>\nthe Government also came up for consideration and one of us (Raju,<br \/>\nJ.), speaking for the Bench, while applying the earlier decision in<br \/>\n1995(5) SCALE 208 (supra), observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;8. That the Government possesses the right<br \/>\nand authority to decide from what sources the<br \/>\nadmissions in Educational Institutions or to<br \/>\nparticular disciplines and courses therein have<br \/>\nto be made and that too in what proportion, is<br \/>\nwell established and by now a proposition well<br \/>\nsettled, too.  It has been the consistent and<br \/>\nauthoritatively settled view of this Court that at<br \/>\nthe super-speciality level in particular and<br \/>\neven at the Postgraduate level reservations of<br \/>\nthe kind known as &#8216;protective discrimination&#8217; in<br \/>\nfavour of those considered to be backward<br \/>\nshould be avoided as being not permissible.<br \/>\nReservation, even if it be claimed to be so in<br \/>\nthis case, for and in favour of in-service<br \/>\ncandidates, cannot be equated or treated at<br \/>\npar with communal reservations envisaged<br \/>\nunder Articles 15(4) or 16(4) and extended the<br \/>\nspecial mechanics of their implementation to<br \/>\nensure such reservations to be the minimum<br \/>\nby not counting those selected in open<br \/>\ncompetition on the basis of their own merit as<br \/>\nagainst the quota reserved on communal<br \/>\nconsiderations.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Properly speaking, in these cases, we are<br \/>\nconcerned with the allocation of seats for<br \/>\nadmission in the form of a quota amongst in-\n<\/p>\n<p>service candidates, on the one hand, and non-<br \/>\nservice or private candidates on the other and<br \/>\nthe method or manner of working out in<br \/>\npractice the allocation of seats among the<br \/>\nmembers of the respective category.  Could<br \/>\nthe State Government have legitimately made<br \/>\na provision allocating 50% of seats exclusively<br \/>\nin favour of in-service candidates and keep<br \/>\nopen the avenue for competition for them in<br \/>\nrespect of the remaining 50% along with<br \/>\nothers denying a fair contest in relation to a<br \/>\nsubstantial or sizeable number of other<br \/>\ncandidates, who are not in service and who<br \/>\nfall under the category of non-service<br \/>\ncandidates, will itself be open to serious<br \/>\ndoubt.\tOne such attempt seems to have been<br \/>\nput in issue before the Madras High Court<br \/>\nwhich held that reservation in favour of in-<br \/>\nservice candidates for the academic year<br \/>\n1992-93 should be confined to 50% and<br \/>\nawarding of two additional marks, instead of<br \/>\none additional mark for each completed year<br \/>\nof service in primary health centers, was<br \/>\nunconstitutional and when the matter was<br \/>\nbrought to this Court, in the decision reported<br \/>\nin State of Tamil Nadu vs T. Dhilipkumar &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. [1995 (5) Scale 67] the decision of the<br \/>\nHigh Court has been upheld.  This Court also<br \/>\nfurther observed that the Government should<br \/>\nappoint a highly qualified committee to<br \/>\ndetermine from year to year what, in fact,<br \/>\nshould be the percentage-wise reservation<br \/>\nrequired for in-service candidates, having<br \/>\nregard to the then prevailing situation and that<br \/>\nthe percentage of fifty percent shall, if found<br \/>\nappropriate, be reduced.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is permissible for the Government to fix such a source or<br \/>\nclassification of candidates from which selection for admission to the<br \/>\nPost-graduate Colleges in the State had to be made for yet another<br \/>\ngenuine, relevant and reasonable cause and purpose, which has, in<br \/>\nour view, sufficient nexus to the larger goal of equalization of<br \/>\neducational opportunities and to sufficiently prefer the doctors serving<br \/>\nin the various Hospitals run and maintained from out of public funds<br \/>\nby the Government or Government departments, in the absence of<br \/>\nwhich there would be serious dearth of qualified post-graduate<br \/>\ndoctors and experts to meet the requirements of such Hospitals run<br \/>\nby the State and State Departments, the only avenue open for<br \/>\ntreatment of the large body of ordinary common man, all over the<br \/>\nState.\tThis larger public interest, unlike reservations envisaged for<br \/>\nSC\/ST with a different and laudable purpose to assist educationally<br \/>\nbackward classes, is a distinct and vitally important public purpose in<br \/>\nitself absolutely necessitated in the best of public interest.\tThe<br \/>\ndecision reported in Dr. Narayan Sharma And Another, etc. vs Dr.<br \/>\nPankaj Kr. Lehkar And Others, etc. (2000(1) SCC 44) is not directly<br \/>\non the point with which we are concerned in this case.\tSimilarly, the<br \/>\nobservations made and dicta laid down in what is known as Mandal&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase reported in <a href=\"\/doc\/1394696\/\">Indra Sawhney vs Union of India And Others<\/a><br \/>\n(1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217) also has no relevance or application to the<br \/>\ncase on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellants, who filed the appeals<br \/>\nwith the permission of the Court, also sought to challenge the<br \/>\nconclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in repelling the<br \/>\nchallenge made to the reduction of the minimum cut-off marks for<br \/>\nselection of the in-service candidates from 50% to 33%.\t Apart from<br \/>\nthe tenability of the objection taken by Shri Sushil Kumar Jain,<br \/>\nlearned counsel appearing for the private candidate-respondents, that<br \/>\nif there was no challenge made of this reasoning before the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court it is not permissible to take such a stand in<br \/>\nthis Court, we are also of the view, on the merits of the claim itself,<br \/>\nthat there is no substance in the same.\t It is not in controversy that<br \/>\nduring the academic years in question, there was no stipulation by<br \/>\nthe Medical Council of India of any minimum eligibility marks to be<br \/>\nsecured in the entrance examination for admission to post-graduate<br \/>\ncourses.  Though it is said that in 2000 such a stipulation has been<br \/>\nmade, for the obvious reason that during the years under our<br \/>\nconsideration there is no such stipulation, the challenge in this regard<br \/>\ndoes not merit our consideration or acceptance, leave alone the<br \/>\nquestion as to the efficacy or binding nature of the said stipulation,<br \/>\nwhich we do not propose to adjudicate upon in these cases.  That<br \/>\napart, as rightly pointed out in one of the judgments of this Court<br \/>\nnoticed above, mere theoretical excellence or merit alone is no<br \/>\nsufficient indicia of the qualitative merits of the candidates in the field<br \/>\nof actual practice and application.  The doctors, who are in-service<br \/>\ncandidates in various medical institutions run and maintained by the<br \/>\nGovernment or Government Departments, have wide area and<br \/>\nhorizon of exposure on the practical side and they may not have the<br \/>\nrequired extra time to keep themselves afresh on the theoretical side<br \/>\nlike an open candidate who may have sufficient time at his disposal to<br \/>\nplod through books.  The in-service candidates in contrast to the<br \/>\nfresh or open candidates have to spend much of their time on<br \/>\nattending and treating the patients in the Hospitals they serve gaining<br \/>\nexcellence on the practical side and, in our view, they would<br \/>\nconstitute a distinct class by themselves to be given a special<br \/>\ntreatment and no grievance can be made out on the ground that the<br \/>\nminimum eligibility marks for their selection in respect of seats<br \/>\nearmarked for them should also be the same as that of the fresh or<br \/>\nopen candidates.  We could see no discrimination or arbitrariness<br \/>\ninvolved in the special provision made to meet a just and appropriate<br \/>\nneed in public interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor all the reasons stated above, these appeals fail and shall<br \/>\nstand dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t [ S.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 Author: Raju Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, S.R.Babu CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7256 of 1999 Appeal (civil) 7259 of 1999 Appeal (civil) 7260 of 1999 Appeal (civil) 7263 of 1999 PETITIONER: PRE-P.G. MEDICAL SANGARSH COMMITTEE &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh ... vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh ... vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-27T07:36:58+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-27T07:36:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2034,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh ... vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-27T07:36:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh ... vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh ... vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-27T07:36:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-27T07:36:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001"},"wordCount":2034,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001","name":"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh ... vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-27T07:36:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pre-p-g-medical-sangarsh-vs-dr-bajrang-soni-ors-on-14-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pre-P.G. Medical Sangarsh &#8230; vs Dr. Bajrang Soni &amp; Ors. on 14 August, 2001"}]},{"@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\/55420","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=55420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}