ZAKIUDDIN MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : (a) The State Government have framed rules known as Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post-graduate Courses (Clinical, Para clinical and Non-clinical Courses), hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", for admission to the post-graduation (M.D./M.S. course) in Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The course is open to candiates, who are classified in four categories. Private medical practitioners practising and settled in Madhya Pradesh fall in one of these categories. A private madical practitioner is defined by Rule 2(i) to mean a recognized medical degree holder as per schedules of Medical Council of India, who is registered with the State Branch of Medical Council and who has been practicising continuously in the State of M.P. for at least one year immediately prior to the date of the application. By virtue of Rule 5(B)(i) of the Rules, six seats in all the Medical Colleges are reserved for private medical practitioners settled and practising in Madhya Pradesh. To be eligible for selection for the post-graduate course, a private medical practitioner must have five years' standing in the profession after completion of internship, as laid down by Rule 6(2)(i). Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 6(2) further provides that a private medical practitioner must have practised for at least one year continuously in the State of M.P. immediately prior to applying for post-graduation course. Rule 9(6) further provides that private medical practitioners, who have a diploma in any subject, would be eligible to obtain a post-graduate degree in the same subject after a period of at least three years from the date of the completion of the diploma course. (b) An advertisement by respondent No. 2 was published in the Free Press Journal dated 13-8-84 inviting applications for the post-graduate course in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh for six seats for private medical prctitioners. It was stated in the advertisement that the candidates must have five years standing in the profession after completion of internship and that the candidates must have practised for at least one year continuously in Madhya Pradesh immediately prior to 3-9-1984, which was the last date of receipt of application. In response to that advertisement, the petitioner along with respondent No. 3 and other private medical practitioners submitted applications for admission to the six seats in the postgraduate course reserved for private medical practitioners. The grievance of the petitioner is that although respondent No. 3 was not eligible for admission to the post-graduate course, yet she was selected by the respondents. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the selection of respondent No. 3 for the post-graduation course be quashed and that a seat be offered to the next eligible candidate.

(3.) In the return submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is averred that in the merit list of candidates from the category of private medical practitioners, who were found eligible for admission to post-graduate course, respondent No. 3 had obtained the second place while the petitioner had obtained the 8th place and as the first six candidates were offered seats reserved for private medical practitioners, the petitioner could not be admitted to the post-graduate course. The allegation that respondent No. 3 was not eligible for selection for the post-graduate course, was denied. On behalf of respondent No. 3, it was denied that she was not eligible for admission to the post-graduate course. It was further stated that respondent No. 3 had not withheld any material information from respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who with full knowledge of all the relevant facts, had selected respondent No. 3 for the postgraduate course and that under these circumstances, her admission to the postgraduate course be not cancelled.