G SUDHAKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks the issue of a writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents 1 to 3 to set aside the selection and allotment of seats in M.S. General Surgery to respondents 4 and 5, and to allot a seat in M. S. General Surgery to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Kakateeya Medical College, Warangal, in June, 1972, completed his internship on 31st August, 1973 and joined as a tutor in the Department of Physiology in the said college on 31st December, 1973 F.N., and his services as tutor were regularised on 18th October, 1976 with effect from 31st December, 1973 and he was also declared to have completed his period of probation in the said post on 1st January, 1976 A.N. and he thus became an approved probationer as tutor in Kakateeya Medical College. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took over the Kakateeya Medical College on 1st February, 1977 pursuant to an agreement dated 15th January, 1977, entered into between the Regional Medical Education Society, Warangal (which was the owner of the Kakateeya Medical College, Warangal and Kakateeya Degree College) and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. Under the said agreement, the staff of the College shall be continued to be employed by the Government on the same terms and conditions as they would have had under the society. Subsequently, the Government passed an order in G. O. Ms. No. 251, M & H Medical and Health (E-l) Department dated 4th March, 1977 under rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the General Rules for the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services appointing the staff existing in the college as on 1st February, 1977 on a temporary basis in the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services until further orders. Accordingly the petitioner continued in the post of tutor in Physiology in the said college. While so, the State Government conducted an entrance test for admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Course on 6th August, 1978 in the Government Colleges including the Kakateeya Medical College. The petitioner appeared for the entrance test and secured 90 marks out of 150 in M. S. General Surgery. The petitioner states that under rule 2 (2) of the Rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 282 M& H Medical and Health (E-l) Department dated 10th April, 1978 as amended in G. O. Ms. Nos. 323 and 324, M & H, dated 3rd May, 1978, 50 per cent, of seats in non-clinical subjects and 15 per cent, of seats in clinical subjects are reserved for candidates selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for appointment to Andhra Pradesh Medical Services, and that the petitioner having been appointed to the Andhra Pradesh Medical Services, he is entitled to be considered for admission to one of the seats reserved for candidates. The petitioner states that he was not selected but two other candidates respondents 4 and 5 who had obtained 64 and 81 marks out of 150 respectively were selected and allotted seats in M. S. General Surgery.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not allotting a seat to the petitioner who has secured higher marks than respondents 4 and 5 is violative of the rules for admission and also Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further states that on enquiry, he learnt that he was not selected for admission to the reserved seats under rule 2 (2) as he was in eligible for applying as a service candidate, as he was not selected for appointment to Andhra Pradesh Medical Services by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Commission.) The petitioner states, that he was an approved probationer in the category of a tutor in the Kakateeya Medical College before the college was taken over; and that the said college was taken over by the Government along with the staff, and he was also appointed temporarily to the Andhra Pradesh Medical Services pending decision on the question of absorption of the said staff into Government services. Therefore, he is a service candidate should have been considered for admission to the seats reserved for service candidates under rule 2 (2).