ANAND UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner completed his M.B.B.S. Course in G. R. Medical College, Gwalior, under Jivaji University, Gwalior. He completed one year house job in the same College in 1991. He was granted registration by the Medical Counsel. He underwent one year's house job in the Department Ophthalmology in the year 1991-92. He filed the writ petition while he was undergoing D.O.M.S. Course in G. R. Medical College, Gwalior desirous of getting admission is M. S. Ophthalmology Course in Govt. Medical College, Jabalpur.

(2.) In the year 1992, there were 3 seats in M. S. Ophthamology Course in the Govt. Medical College, Jabalpur. Of them, one was reserved for Surgeons and the remaining two were to be filled up from among the Institutional candidates. Out of the two seats, one was surrendered for the purpose of admission in pursuance of All India Entrance Examination. Vacancies having arisen in the All India Post Graduate quota for 1992, the one seat so surrendered, was released. The Director, Medical Education M.P., decided that the released seat should be utilised by local candidate. Rule 8.2 of the M.P. Selection for post Graduate Courses in Medical College of M.P. Rules 1984, requires the seats (not otherwise reserved for Assistant Surgeons or the like etc.) to be filled on the basis of merit from amongst the students passing from particular College. Petitioner, not having passed from Govt. Medical College Jabalpur, and being an outsider, is not eligible to seek admission to the vacant seat. He repeatedly submitted applications to the Authorities, but in vain. 4th respondent, an Institutional candidate of Govt. Medical College Jabaplur, was admitted in the seat in December, 1992. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the Rule referred to above as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to admit him in the Course and seeking cancellation granted to 4th respondent. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 4th respondent has filed her return.

(3.) The Division Bench which heard the matter, thought that earlier Division Bench decisions have taken conflicting views and referred to the Full Bench the question whether the seats reverted back from all India quota shall be filled in from the merit list of Institutional candidates, or on the basis of comparative merit list of all students of all Medical College in M.P., By a separate order passed by the Chief Justice, the entire case has come up for consideration before the Full Bench.