ABHISHEK VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A copy of the writ petition was made available to the Advocate General who have filed their reply in the Registry. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties requirement of notice to MCI is dispensed with.

(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being heard finally at this stage taking into consideration the nature of the case.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the notification issued for providing 5% reservation to More Backward Classes for admission into Educational Institutions and Posts in the State has been brought in force w.e.f. 13.02.2019 and the said notification would not apply to the selection process which has already been initiated under the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test 2019. The selection was conducted for PG Selections PAN India on 06.01.2019. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the Information Bulletin the last date for submitting the application was 22.11.2018. The Instruction Booklet provided for counselling to be conducted for State seats as per the reservation policy and guidelines applicable in the State for the State Quota seats. It is his submission that as per the existing reservation policy on the date when the selection process was started since notification dated 13.02.2019 was not in force therefore the 5% reservation provided for More Backward Classes was not available in the State of Rajasthan. It is his submission therefore that the counseling has to be conducted in terms of the then existing reservation policy and the notification cannot have a retrospective effect. Learned counsel submits that seats for PG for State of Rajasthan are already determined on the day when the examination is conducted and the counseling is merely a process of allotment of seats in the various medical colleges thus the reservation of seats for admission is to be understood on the day when the advertisement or the Instruction Booklet was issued for examination. Learned counsel submits that the game rules cannot be changed during the game. Learned counsel has relied on law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Surendra Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 410 and Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Sahoo and Others Versus State of Odhisha and Ors. 2013 (2) ILRCUT 355 as well as AIR 1990 SC 1233 N.T. Bevin Katti, etc. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others, in support of his aforesaid submissions.