(1.) The petitioner and the 4th respondent are both medical graduates and applicants for admission into post-graduate M.D., course of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. After they passed their M.B.B.S., examinations at different times both the petitioner and the 4th respondent obtained diplomas in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Later both joined Government service. While the petitioner joined in the Government Medical Department in May, '83 the 4th respondent joined the same Department much later in 1984. While working in the Medical Department both applied for admission into post-graduate M. D. Course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. They sat for common-entrance examination. While the petitioner secured in that examination 158 marks out of a total of 200 marks with 3 marks added for her diploma qualification taking the total to'161', the 4th respondent secured '153' marks in the entrance examination to which they added '3' marks taking the total to '156'. Thus, the total marks the 4th respondent secured are lower to the total marks secured by the petitioner. Yet the selection committee selected the 4th respondent for admission into M.D., course of Gynaecology and Obstetrics while rejecting the petitioner to the same course. It may be mentioned that the Selection Committee considered the case of the petitioner for admission against the 15% of the medical seats reserved for in-service candidates while the case of the 4th respondent for admission was considered against the general seats. This was done by the Selection Committee on the basis that the petitioner was an in-service candidate within the meaning of G.O. Ms. No. 549 M & H Department dt. 6-9-'83 as amended from time to time. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 3 of the above G.O. says that 15% of scats in Clinical subjects, i.e., in Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynatcoloy groups and 30% of seats in Non-Clinical subjects or in each group are reserved for in-service candidates, the reservation of in-service candidates shall be applicable in each category. The explanation to the said sub-clause says that an in-service candidate is one who has put in a minimum of two years service on duty in the respective service.
(2.) The Selection Committee interpreted the above sub-clause (2) of Rule 3 not only as providing for a reservation of the in-service candidate, but also as denying the right of in-service candidate to be considered for the general seats. As the petitioner has put in a minimum of 2 years of service the Selection Committee treated the petitioner as an in-service candidate and the 4th respondent was treated by the Selection Committee as a general candidate because the 4th respondent though in government service had not put-in a minimum of 2 years service.
(3.) The petitioner having been aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Committee made in favour of the 4th respondent for admission into M.D. Gynaecology and Obstetrics has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the Selection Committee constituted by the Government. This Court admitted the writ petition on 4th March, '86 and by interim orders had forbidden the 4th respondent from taking admission in the medical college. The argument of the petitioner is that although she is an in-service candidate within the meaning of the above sub-clause (2) of Rule 3 of the Selection Rules, her right to be considered against the general seats cannot be taken away by the reservation provided under the said rule for the in-service candidates. According to the petitioner's case she ought to have been considered against the general seats. If it is so considered, there is no doubt the petitioner-would have been preferred for admission into the M.D., Gynaecology and Obstetrics to the 4th respondent. But the contention of the respondent-State and the 4th respondent is that an in-service candidate can be considered for admission into the post-graduate courses only against the seats reserved for the in-service candidates and the case of such a candidate cannot be considered against the general seats.