DHEERENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROFESSIONAL Examination Board, Bhopal, the respondent No. 2 herein, published an advertisement for selection for Pre -Medical Test, 2004 for State Health Services in the newspaper daily, namely Dainik Bhaskar as per Annexure P -3. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application with requisite fees and was eligible to participate in the examination. He was issued admit card. As set forth, he appeared in the written examination and his results were declared indicating that he has secured 176.15 marks out of total marks of 200. The counselling took place on 28 -7 -2004 for the unreserved seats. As per the programme of counselling, the petitioner went to Bhopal with essential documents, which included certificate of domicile in the State (District Satna). The said certificate was issued by the Tehsildar, Nagod, District Satna as per Annexure P -5. The certificate clearly showed that the petitioner's birth place was District Satna and had his education in Uttar Pradesh. It also states that the family had movable and immovable property in District Satna (M.P.). The petitioner placed documents pertaining to domicile certificate of Satna as the family had agricultural land in the area. The voters list as well as ration card reflected that he is a domicile of Satna District in Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, though the domicile certificate was issued by the Competent Authority but at the time of counselling, it was not accepted and he was not permitted to participate in the counselling by the respondent No. 2. A representation was submitted by the petitioner putting forth his grievance. It is urged that part of his education was in the State of M.P. Though he had produced the domicile certificate granted by the Competent Authority which was fortified by production of other documents, he was not permitted to appear in the counselling. It is also canvassed that when he agitated his grievance, he was threatened to be arrested. With this factual back -drop, a prayer has been made for issue of a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the counselling.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that as per Clause 9 of the Rules, counselling of the candidates who had passed the Pre Medical Entrance Test from the Professional Examination Board is to be convened by the Counselling Committee in which the Director, Professional Examination Board or his representative is one of the Members. The scrutiny of the documents is made by his staff and the Director, Professional Examination Board had no role in the scrutiny and therefore, the Director, Medical Education, M.P. who maintains the record of the counselling is alone reply to the points raised by the petitioner. It is put forth on the basis of proforma 6 given in the Rules, the petitioner was under obligation to submit a certificate in the form contained therein duly signed by the authorised officer. In the instant case, the petitioner had filed certificate Annexure P -5 which shows that he had received education up to Class 12th in Uttar Pradesh and perhaps for this reason, the scrutiny officer did not allow him to participate in the counselling.