JAYASHEELA J SHAH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a student of seth G. S. Medical College for M. Ch. Course in super speciality of plastic surgery. The 3rd respondent is also admitted in the same college for the same course. The petitioner passed her M. B. B. S. Examination in november 1982 from Bombay University. She appeared from Seth G. S. Medical College. She thereafter enrolled for a post-graduate degree (M. S.) in General Surgery at the same college and she passed her M. S. Examination of Bombay University in November 1986. She thereafter registered in the same college for a super speciality viz. plastic surgery leading to M. Ch. degree. At the time of filing of the petition she had done 2 house posts in plastic surgery at K. E. M. Hospital which is attached to seth G. S. Medical College. Her first House Post was from 21-4-1987 to 31-7-1987 and the second House Post was from 1-8-1987 to 31-1-1988.

(2.) THE 3rd respondent obtained his M. B. B. S. degree from Karna-taka University, Dharwar in January 1982. He obtained his M. S. degree in general surgery in August 1986 from Bangalore University. He has been admitted to M. Ch. Course in super-speciality of plastic surgery at g. S. Medical College. At the time of filing of the petition, the 3rd respondent had done two house posts in plastic surgery, one from 1-7-1987 to 31-7-1987 and the second post from 1-8-1987 to 31-1-1988. These house posts have been completed by the 3rd respondent at K. E. M. Hospital which is attached to G. S. Medical College.

(3.) IN January 1988 the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent applied for the post of Registrar in Plastic Surgery at K. E. M. Hospital. On 20-1-1988 the petitioner's name was put up on the notice board of k. E. M. Hospital indicating that she was appointed Registrar in Plastic. Surgery. On 25-1-1988, however, the Advisory Committee of the Hospital at a meeting decided that the 3rd respondent should be chosen as Registrar for Plastic Surgery instead of the petitioner. According to Respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent was preferred to the petitioner because he had obtained more marks in the relevant subject of surgery in the final M. B. B. S. Examination than the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 took the view that the experience of both the candidates should be considered as on par.