RATNAKAR SHETTY Vs. SELECTION COMMITTEE P G DEGREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three petitions arising out of selections made for admission to the post graduate courses in Government Medical Colleges by the selection Committee appointed by the State Government, the following questions of law arise for consideration :

(2.) (i) Petitioner in WP. No. 17505 of 1980 applied for selection for admission to Post Graduate course in Orthopedics The petitioner was not called for interview. He has secured 54.3 per cent marks in the M.B.B.S. examination. (ii) Petitioner in WP. 17646 of 1980 applied for Post Graduate course in Pediatrics She belongs to Scheduled caste She has secured 56.18 per cent in the M.B.B.S. examination (iii) Petitioner in WP. 17719 of 1980 applied for Post Graduate Course in Optholmology. She has secured 53.33 per cent in the M B.B S. examination. He also belongs to Scheduled caste. The three petitioners were not called for interview. The explanation given by Sri G. R. Nataraj, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the selection committee, was that the committee decided to call for interview in the ratio of 1:2 of the number of seats required to be filled up in open competition and the candidates eligible for selection for those seats and in the ratio of 1:3 of the seats reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the candidates eligible for selection for those seats, in the respective subjects.

(3.) The first question for consideration is whether the selection committee was right in restricting the number of candidates to be called for interview. Rule 8 of the rules prescribes the procedure for selection. According to the said rule, the selection committee is entitled to award marks at the interview for professional knowledge. The maximum marks fixed is ten. The merit of the candidate is required to be judged on the basis of the percentage of the marks secured in M.B.B.S. and the marks secured in the interview. Rule 2 of the rules prescribes the conditions of eligibility. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are eligible for consideration of their cases for selection to post graduate course to which they had applied. Rule 8 does not empower the committee to exclude any eligible candidate, while calling the candidates for interview. The ratio adopted by the committee was impermissible and unreasonable and had resulted in discrimination as the candidates were entitled to get interview marks in addition to the marks secured in the M B.B.S. examination.