K R MAHESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition by persons who are serving as Medical Officers in the Government and who had written the entrance examination conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University for selecting the candidates for admission to post Graduate Medical courses whose performances had been notified in terms of the rankings assigned to them and who had also been counseled but completion of the counseling having stopped midway and the Government also having indicated that certain changes are sought to be effected to the method and manner of counseling that the earlier ranking and counseling are of no consequence but it is to be freshly assigned and re counseling would take place by the PGET-2006, are before this court questioning the Notification dated 12-6-2006 (copy at Annexure-Q) which has brought about such changes midway impugning the legality of the same.

(2.) As indicated above, the petitioners had written examination, rankings were made known and on the basis of such rankings in the examination for the purpose of admission to post, Graduate Medical and Dental courses had been interviewed etc.,. Later, when the Government issued a Notification dated 12-6-2006 indicating that the earlier ranking and counseling will be of no consequence, it will be re-done again, the petitioners apprehensive of what they had gained by their efforts may be lost have approached this court questioning the legality of such a Notification, particularly, as it comes midway when the counseling for admission of candidates was in progress.

(3.) The challenge is on the premise that the action is arbitrary, coming midway and the notification is questioned primarily on the ground that it is an arbitrary action and not based on any rule or norm nor the action was warranted; that it is also clearly in contravention of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in several Judgments involving admission to post Graduate Medical and Dental courses where in the Supreme Court has emphatically directed that there should be common entrance test and one counseling and not counseling after counseling, particularly, having regard to the time stipulations such as last date for admitting the students to these courses and second counseling for the very candidates is not permissible in law and therefore the notification is liable to be quashed.