JAISHREE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition in which the petitioner claims that she was entitled to get admission for post-graduate degree course in the subject of gynaecology and obstetrics which commenced in February, 1988. She has also asked for quashing the registration granted to the respondents 3 and 4 in the above subjects by the respondent No. 2, Dean.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner passed her M. B. B. S. Examination in june, 1985 from Jabalpur University in the State of Madhya pradesh. She completed her intership and one year's house job at Jabalpur itself. She was registered as a Medical Practitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra State Medical Council Act. Pursuant to the advertisement issued on 27-12-1987 the petitioner made an application for admission in one of the seats advertised for post-graduate degree course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The above advertisement dated 27-12-1987 was however cancelled and a fresh advertisement dated 18/21-1-1988 for admission to the post-graduate degree/diploma courses was issued. However, the candidates who had already applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 27-12-1987 were not required to make fresh applications as per the fresh advertisement dated 18/21-1-1988.

(3.) THE respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had also made similar applications for admission in the post-graduate degree course in Gynaecology and obstetrics. The respondent No. 3 is an institutional candidate belonging to the respondent No. 2 College who has done one year's house job at nagpur, but the respondent No. 4 is a candidate who passed her M. B. B. S. examination from Karachi University in Pakistan. However, according to her, she was granted Indian Nationality in 1985. Further according to her she had done the first house job in Karachi-Hospital and the second house iob in Matru Seva Sangh, Nagpur. It is relevant to see the marks secured by the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the subjects of Gynaecology and Obstetrics because according to the petitioner since she had higher merits than the respondent No. 3, she should have been given admission in preference to her. Their marks are as follows : petitioner : 242 marks out of 400 respondent No. 3 : 239 marks out of 400 respondent No. 4 : 384 marks out of 600 from the above marks it is clear that the percentage of marks obtained by the respondent No. 4 is higher than the percentage of marks obtained by either the petitioner or the respondent No. 3.