VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arc all candidates for the Pre-P. G. Medical and Dental test for admissions into the Post Graduate and Post Graduate Diploma Courses in the Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of M. P. In the Rules, made by the State Government relating to entrance to Post Graduate and Post Graduate Diploma courses in Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of M. P. in 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2005), to be eligible for the entrance examination, a candidate was required to be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh or must have passed all MBBS/bds examinations from Medical/dental College of Madhya Pradesh. A new set of Rules has been framed by the Slate Government, relating to entrance to Post Graduate and Post Graduate Diploma; Medical and Dental Courses in Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of M. P. in 2006, called the Pre-PG Medical and Dental Post Graduate Entrance Test 2006, Conduct of Examinations and Admission Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2006 ). Rule 15 of the Rules of 2006 is titled 'eligibility' and Clause 1 (i) of the said Rule 15 provides that the candidate must be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh and must have passed all MBBS/bds examinations from Medical/dental Colleges of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid provision in Rule 15 (1) (i) of the said Rules of 2006 in so far as it provides that the candidate must be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh on the ground that the said provision is ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) MR. N. S. Kale, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W. P. No. 4103 of 2006 submitted that whereas under the Rules of 2005, the candidate was to be either a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh or one who has passed all MBBS/bds examinations from Medical/dental College in the Slate of Madhya Pradesh, under the impugned Rules of 2006, the candidate has to be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh and also must have passed all MBBS/bds examinations from Medical/dental College in the Stale of Madhya Pradesh. He submitted that the petitioners in these cases have passed all MBBS/bds examinations from Medical/dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh but. , they arc not bonafide residents of Madhya Pradesh and therefore, under the said Rule 15 (1) of the impugned Rules of 2006, they are ineligible for the pre-post graduate test and for this reason, they have challenged, the aforesaid provision in Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2006, in so far as it provides that the candidate must be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh. He submitted that in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR1984 SC 1420 , (1984 )86 BOMLR626 , (1984 )II LLJ481 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE894 , (1984 )3 SCC654 , [1984 ]3 SCR942 , a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that residence requirement within the State cannot be a ground for admission to Post Graduate Courses, although a certain percentage of seats may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that students who have, passed MBBS examination from a Medical College or a University may be given preference to PG course in the same Medical College or the University, but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference basis should not exceed 50% of the number of open scats available to the students for admission to the post-graduate course. He submitted that the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Magan Mehrotra and Ors. v. Onion of India and Ors. 2003 (3 )SCALE101 , (2003 )11 SCC186 , as well as in Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR2004 SC 361 , 2003 (4 )CTC477 , [2004 (1 )JCR140 (SC )], JT2003 (8 )SC 296 , (2003 )11 SCC146 , (2004 )1 UPLBEC279. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid clear law laid down by the Apex Court time and again that residence requirement within the State cannot be an eligibility criterion for purposes of admission to Post Graduate Medical courses, the provision in Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2006 to the effect that the candidate must be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of. India and the law declared by the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4127, 4128, 4138, 4140 and 4162 of 2006 submitted that although the petitioners are all bonafide residents of Madhya Pradesh, they apprehend that their applications for the entrance examination may be rejected on the ground that they are not bonafide residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned Counsel for all the petitioners in this batch of cases adopted the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Kale.

(3.) MR. Sanjay Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent State relying on the return filed by the answering respondents in W. P. No. 4347 of 2006 submitted that the aforesaid provision in Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 2006 that the candidate must be a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh was introduced after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. (supra) in compliance with the letter dated 3. 12. 2004 of the Directorate General of Health Services (Medical Examination Cell ). He relied on some paragraphs from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others (supra) in support of his aforesaid submission,