AMIT KUMAR ARITWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE essential question of law being common to these two cases they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity we think it appropriate to state the facts in each case in brief.

(2.) IN W. P. No. 27632/03 the factual matrix as has been exposited is that the petitioner applied for entrance examination for post graduation course which was conducted as per the M. P. Medical and Dental Post Graduation Entrance Examination Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). The written test was held on 9-3-2003. The petitioner secured 573 marks out of 900 and was placed at serial No. 232 in the waiting list. The first counselling was held in the month of May, 2003 wherein the candidates from the merit list were called for allotment of P. G. seats in different medical colleges. The subsequent counsellings, as setforth, were held on 23-7-2003 and 25-7-2003. Thereafter as some seats from the assistance surgeon quota have been reverted to be filled up from the candidates in the waiting list the recounselling was held on 6-9-2003 to 9-9-2003 and all the wait listed candidates of general category and OBC category candidates were called for allotment of the seats. The petitioner was offered the Diploma seat in ENT (DLO) but he did not accept the same and opted to remain in the waiting list in expectation of the seats which might be reverted to general category on being unfilled from the reserved category candidates as per Rule 15. 14 of the Rules and he would have the benefit The subsequent counselling, as pleaded, for OBC category was held on 9-9-2003 and certain seats remained unfilled in the category of M. S. , (Anatomy), M. D. (Physiology) and D. L. O. seats. Reference has been made to Rule 15. 10 (d) to highlight that the unavailed seats are to be filled up by the eligible candidates of unreserved category candidates but because of erroneous sequence of the counselling as per Rule 15. 9 of the Rules the petitioner could not avail the benefit. It is averred that the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 10-9-2003 for allotment of seat in M. S. (Anatomy) at Medical College, Rewa but his representation was not paid heed to. It is contended that there is anomaly in the Rules 15. 9 and 15. 10 and the sequence of counselling as provided under the Rule 15. 9 is totally arbitrary, illogical and an anathema to the conception of reasonableness. In this backdrop prayer has been made for declaring the Rule 15. 9 of the Rules as ultra vires and further to command the respondents to call the petitioner for counselling for allotment of seat in the course of M. S. (Anatomy) at Medical College, Rewa or in the alternative to readvertise the vacancy as per Rules 15. 10 and 15. 14.

(3.) IN W. P. No. 27819/2003 the petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon being qualified appeared in the Pre-P. G. Entrance Test held in the year 2003 and secured 4th position in overall merit list of in-service quota. As he had already done his Post Graduate Diploma in Radiology he was interested to complete P. G. degree in the said subject. As setforth, only two degree seats were available in Radio-Diagnosis, one under the un-reserved category and another under the ST category. It is putforth that the petitioner was not allowed the degree seat in Radio Diagnosis. In this backdrop the petitioner has assailed the Rules 15. 10 and 15. 11 of the Rules. A reference has been made to the decision rendered in the case of Mayank Jain v. State of M. P. and Ors. , 2003 (4) M. P. H. T. 275 (DB) (W. P. No. 27382/2003) wherein Rule 9. 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2003 was declared as ultra vires. In this obtaining scenario the petitioner has prayed for issue of directions to re-assess the allotment of P. G. seats in accordance with the Rule 8. 0 of the main Rules and to provide the P. G. Degree seat of Radio-Diagnosis to the petitioner in accordance with the merit of the petitioner.