ASHISH RAJ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was delivered by THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the constitutional validity of Rule 1.9(l)(c) of M.P. Medical & Dental Post Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010 {hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2010}. THE rule provides that in service candidates who have done post graduation in one subject {degree/diploma} will not be eligible for admission in another subject. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner completed the MBBS course in the year 1999; thereafter he joined the course of diploma in Obstetrics & Gynecology in the year 2004. He has been appointed as Assistant Surgeon through PSC on 24.9.2003. He joined the services on 28.5.2004. He has served in the rural area. THE petitioner was shown to be qualified in post graduate entrance test 2010, counselling started from 3.4.2010. THE State Government has issued a sponsorship certificate dated 3.4.2010 which restricted the petitioner to opt for only Obstetrics & Gynecology on the ground that the petitioner is holding diploma in the same subject. THE petitioner has submitted that restriction imposed is unreasonable & arbitrary. Rule 1.9(1)(c) of the Rules of 2010 is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. THEre is no logic behind it. In cases of other candidates, the rule has been relaxed on earlier occasions. THE said rule deserves to be struck down.

(2.) SHRI Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 1.9(1)(c) of the Rules of 2010 imposes unreasonable restriction by restricting the post graduation in the same subject in which diploma or degree is held. The rule illegally interferes in right to obtain education in the subject of the choice of the petitioner hence, the same is ultra vires. He has also submitted that on earlier occasions, the rule has been relaxed and permission has been given to certain incumbents to undertake different course than the diploma or degree which was held by them. The petitioner has been discriminated with.

(3.) THUS, the restriction which has been imposed cannot be said to be unconstitutional in any manner. Striving towards the excellence in a particular field is the fundamental duty of incumbent which has found expression under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India which is the underlying idea of Rule 1.9(1)(c) of the Rules of 2010. THUS, the rule cannot be said to be violative of any of the right of the petitioner.