K JOHN KOSHY Vs. DRTARAKESHWARPRASADSHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Planning by its order dated 20/1/1976 approved the West Bengal government's proposal for upgrading the Postgraduate Training and Research Department (Kayachikitsa) on certain conditions including that the college should be affiliated to a recognised university, the upgraded Department should have an all-India character and 50% seats should be reserved for outside candidates, if forthcoming. With a view to maintaining a high standard, the Department decided to admit candidates strictly on merit to be determined on academic achievements and results in written and viva voce tests for selection. A committee of experts was entrusted the task of selecting the candidates for admission. That Committee had accepted minimum 50% marks as the norm for selection.

(3.) In 1988-89, for six seats advertisement was issued and intending candidates applied. The respondent who hailed from outside the State applied in the quota reserved for such candidates. All the outside State candidates competed for the three seats reserved for them and appeared for the selection test. None of those who appeared met the minimum requirement. In order that the three seats may not go waste, the minimum marks were reduced from 50% to 30% and the Selection Committee undertook a review to ascertain how many met this diluted norm. It was found that two candidates from the State and one candidate studying in West Bengal but otherwise from outside the State qualified. The respondent didnot qualify even according to the reduced standard. Surprisingly, even before the final selection list was out, he moved a writ petition in the High court. The High court by its order dated 22/11/1990 ordered his admission in the quota for outside students provided he succeeded in the selection test. The respondent was not successful. He moved a second writ petition. A learned single Judge by an interim order dated 22/2/1991 directed his provisional admission. On the present appellants making an application for vacating the said interim order, the learned Single Judge by order dated 3-4-1991 directed notice to issue (suo motu) to show cause why action for contempt should not be taken. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal FMAT No. 1036 of 1991 questioning the interim order of 22/2/1991. The division bench admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the said interim order.