RAMAMURTHY Vs. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared for P.O.M. Entrance ,test on 28-10-1979 for admission in the Post Graduate courses in Groups 2, 3 and 4 (Medicine) Surgery and Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The petitioner got 86 marks in medical group (322nd rank), 83 marks in surgical group (329th rank) and 72 marks in Gynaecology and Obstetrics group (345th rank). As the selection was made on the basis of the merit with reference to the marks obtained by each candidate, the petitioner was not selected. On 27-3-1980 the concerned Authorities put up the list showing the marks obtained by the selected candidates. Having failed to secure a seat in the competition, he directed his wrath against the candidate selected in the reserved quota. He contends that as per Annexure I of G.O. Ms No. 624 dated 26-9-1979 and the rules thereunder there was only one seat in M.D. (Venereal Diseases) and three seats in Diploma of Venereal Diseases thus making a total of four seats in that subject. Out of the four seats, respondents 6,7 and 8 who belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Classes were given one seat each and the M.D. seat was given to the open competition candidate. The petitioner submits that as per rule 1 (a) 14% should be reserved for Scheduled Castes, 4% to Scheduled Tribes and 25% to Backward Classes making a total of 43 per cent of the seats available. But in this case the allotment of seats works out at 75% of the seats which is far in excess of the permissible limit given to these classes and the allotment of three seats to respondents 6, 7 and 8 out of four seats in this subject is contrary to rule 1 (a) of the rules. Similarly in group 3 (M.S. Orthopaedics) total number of seats available are five, out of which the reservation for Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes will be one each and open competition will bs three. Out of the seats available, 15% were reserved for non-local candidates. But out of these seats, respondents 9 and 10 who are non-local candidates were given one seat each and this is more than the permissible percentage for those candidates as per rule 3 (7) of the rules. He, therefore, contends that even in this group, there is violation of rules as per the above rule and the permissible limit prescribed by the said rule. If one of the two seats is made available to the general seats, he could have been entitled to one seat on the basis of merit. Thus he assails the granting of three seats in excess of the quota reserved for Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, and also two seats given to the non-local candidates and, he, therefore, contends that rule 10 providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and Rule 3 (7) providing for non-local candidates were not followed and bence the allotment made under these two categories should be struck down insofar as the excess is concerned.

(2.) The 1st respondent (the Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical and Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad) contends in the counter that as per rule 1 of G.O. Ms. No. 624, Medical and Health, dated 26-9-1979 and the clarification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 516 M & H dated 14-3-1980 it is stated that in the subjects (Specialities) where the number of seats in Degree courses is four or more, the reservation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes candidates shall be followed in that speciality in Degree and Diploma separately, and if the number of seats are less than 4 in the Degree Course, the reservation shall be followed in that subject (Speciality) after adding the number of seats, if any, in the concerned diploma. In case there are no seats in diploma for each subject with less than four seats in the Degree Course, reservatioa will not apply. The Government also provided that the total percentage of reservation of seats provided to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes on the total number of seats in all the subjects available in grougs, excluding statewide courses and super specialities shall be maintained. Further, as per rule 10 (f) of G.O. Ms. No. 624 M & H Dt. 26-9-1979 the Selection committee will select the candidates as per reservation specified in rules 2 and 3 for the total seats available in the Group as detailed in Annexure I The reservation for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at 25%. 14% and 4% respectively worked out in each subject in the available seats and also worked out on the total seats available in each group. Then the net reservation finally made on the above criteria in each group was worked out. If the subject-wise reservation fell short of groupwise reservation, provision is made to make good the difference by deleting the last candidate under open competition. Reserved candidates i e , Back-ward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes selected under open competition category shall have to be treated as open competition candidates as per G.O. Ms. No. 996, Employment and Social Welfare, dated 11-11-1975.

(3.) It is further contended that M.D. (V.D) and Diploma in Venerealogy comes under Medical group. The Selection Committee selected 34 candidates under open competition category in Medicine group according to the options of the candidates and strictly according to merit. After filling up of O.C. seats, the remaining seats were filled with B.C., S.C. and S.T. candidates according to their options. Within 34 O C. candidates, no caa- didate opted for Diploma in Venerealogv. Hence the seat was given to Scheduled Tribe candidate to satisfy group reservation for Scheduled Tribes. In Medical Group three seats were reserved out of 63 seats for Scheduled Tribes, but of these three seats, one seat was reserved in M.D (General Medicine) as per subject reservation and the remaining two seats were filled up by replacing the less merited open competition candidites to satisfy group reservation. The last selected candidate under open competition category in Medical group got 104/51 mark, whereas the petitioner got only 86/45 marks. In between, there are 257 candidates. Hence the petitioner has no chance at all for getting selection even in Diploma in Venerealogy or in any other subject. As against the petitioner's contention as to the reservation of seats for non-locals under rule 3 (7) it is stated that 15% of seats kept unreserved amongst various categories including local candidates in each group and these 15% seats shall not excaed within the group and not in each subject as per rule 10 (b). In surgical group 7 seats are kept unreserved for the candidates specified in rale 3 (7)., and out of 7 teats, only 2 candidates got selection. Hence the selection of two non-local candidaces is in order, and as per their merit and choice they have been allotted seat in M.S (Orthopaedics). There is no subject-wise reservation for the non-locals. As against the contention of the petitioner regarding the excess given to Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes it is stated that no extra seats were given to these candidates and the seats were given to those classes as per the Admission Rules. It is further stated in the counter that this court in W.P.No.6727/1979 and batch dated 7-12-1979 held that rule 2 (1) is valid. The 1st respondent thus contends that no rule is violated and no extra seats were given either to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or to non-locals violative of any rule.