(1.) All these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment Broadly speaking, these writ petitions fall into two groups. The first group is of writ petitions in which the petitioners belongs to the other Medical Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University itself to which the Medical College giving admissions to the post-graduate courses is affiliated. These writ petitions are Writ Petition No. 1707 of 1986, Writ Petition No. 1592 of 1986, Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1986 and the Writ Petition No. 2356 of 1986. The rest of the writ petitions belong to a group in which the petitioners do not belong to the Medical Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University. Some of the petitioners in this group are from the colleges even outside the State of Maharashtra.
(2.) Briefly, the facts in these writ petitions are that an advertisement was issued on 28-7-1986 by the Dean of the Government Medical College Nagpur and on 31-7-1986 by the Dean of the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur for admission to the post-graduate degree and diploma courses in their respective Medical Colleges. A statement showing the distribution of seats for the various courses was also shown in the aforesaid advertisements issued by the Deans of the aforesaid Medical Colleges. It is not in dispute that the admissions to the post-graduates courses in the aforesaid medical colleges were made on the basis of the Rules No. MCT/2571 /24516/C dated 18-6-1971, as it stood amended by the G.R. No. MCG 1082/1812/MED-7 dated 20-8-1983.
(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that admissions are given by the Deans of the aforesaid medical colleges to the institutional candidates only which is contrary to the interpretation put upon Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules by this Court in the case of (Abhay S. Darshane v. State of Maharashtra) 1985 Mh.L.J. 155. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that according to Rule 5, as interpreted by this Court in the above decision, it is only when the institutional candidates as well as the outside candidates have equal corrected marks that the preference can be shown to the institutional candidates. The State Government, on the other hand, has urged that Rule 5, as amended in 1983, makes cent percent reservation in favour of the institutional candidates except to the extent as carved out for inservice personnel and the Backward Classes. The alternate submission therefore, on behalf of the petitioners is that if it is held that there is cent percent reservation for institutional candidates in Rule 5, then the said Rule 5 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and needs to be struckdown. At any rate, the submission is that part of the above Rule 5 which is discriminatory should be struck down and the other part which is valid should be given effect to by applying the test of severability. It is also urged on behalf of some of the petitioners that if Rule 5(a) is construed to mean absolute reservation in favour of the institutional candidates, it is contrary to the statutory regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council with the approval of the Central Government under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which regulations provide for admissions on merit only and Rule 5(a) being merely a rule framed under the executive power of the State, Rule 5(a) must yield to the above statutory Regulations.