SANJAY PHADKE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions challenge the vires of clauses (e) and (I) of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules for selection of candidates for appointment as House officers in the Medical Colleges which came into force with effect from 1-1-1984 and as such, are being decided by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners of these two writ petitions, after passing their M. B. B. S. Examination and completing the internship, applied for appointment as House Officers, in the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore, which has been denied to them. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in regard to the validity of sub-rules. (e) and (f) of Rule 8 aforesaid, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the said Rules at this stage. A copy of the Rules has been attached as Annexure R-4 to the return filed on behalf of the respondents. Rule 6 reads as under :

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that when the provisional merit list was prepared as contemplated by Rule 6, their names were shown much above in the list It, however, appears that a representation was made by some students on the basis of which, relying on sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8, the names of the petitioners were placed down below in the final list with the result that the petitioners could not get appointments as House officers. It is in these circumstances that these petitions have been instituted challenging the validity of sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8.