SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATNE Vs. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Demonstrator in Pharmacology in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and he has completed more than 12 years of service. He appeared in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination, 2007 as an in-service candidate and was ranked at Sr. No. 4 in the merit list of Scheduled Caste candidates. On the basis of his position in the merit list, he was called for counseling but was not allotted a seat of M. D. Pharmacology because a seat of M. D. Pharmacology was not available to be allotted to the petitioner. He was not allowed to opt for a seat in any subject other than Pharmacology because of the provision in Rule 9.2(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2007, (for short 'the Rules') that a Demonstrator working on a regular basis in Medical College of Government of Madhya Pradesh who has completed five years of regular service will be eligible to opt a seat in his own subject only in which he is working. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to declare the provision in rule 9.2(a) of the rules as ultra vires the Constitution.

(2.) Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Demonstrator and a Medical Officer are both in- service candidates. Under the Rules, a Medical Officer can opt for any subject in the PG course but under the impugned Rule 9.2(a) of the Rules a restriction has been put that a Demonstrator can opt a seat in his own subject only in which he is working in case he is selected to the PG course. He vehemently submitted that this amounts to discrimination against a Demonstrator and Rule 9.2(a) of the rules is therefore violative of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution and should be declared as ultra vires.

(3.) Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, relying on the return filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the restriction for allowing the Demonstrator for in-service candidate only in the subject in which he has been working has been put in the Rules for the purposes of ensuring that the Demonstrator after coming PG course does not leave the service. He submitted that if a Demonstrator is allowed to opt for a seat in any subject other than the subject in which he is working as Demonstrator, he may leave the job after doing PG in other subjects and there will be shortage of Demonstrators in Medical Colleges. He further submitted that a demonstrator is appointed for a particular subject whereas a Medical Officer is not appointed for any particular subject and a Medical Officer works in different areas of medical service. He submitted that Demonstrators and Medical Officers therefore constitute two different classes and the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution is no way violated.