RAMU THAKUR Vs. M P PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing vires of Rule 1. 20. 9 of the Rules called 'm. P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate course Entrance Examination Rules, 2008' (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the rules of 2008' ).

(2.) THE aforesaid provision has been assailed as illegal and arbitrary by the petitioner on the ground that in case of non-availability of eligible candidates of ST category, in-service candidates, the seats should have gone to the corresponding category candidates of open candidates, it should not have been permitted to be filled by SC category in-service and in case no SC/st category in-service candidates are available, by OBC in-service candidates and in case no OBC in-service category candidate is available, by general category in-service candidates. It is submitted that aforesaid rule disturbs the ratio of a particular category candidates to the maintained in the colleges for SC/st and obc category candidates for whom the provision for reservation has been made. In the Rules for the year 2007 the seats to be filled by ST in-service category candidates in case remained vacant, they were to be filled by the corresponding category candidates of open competition. This year departure has been made. In the year 2006 also the provision was like framed this year, i. e. , in the year 2008.

(3.) SHRI Rajesh Maindiretta, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that the operation of the Rule 1. 20. 9 of the Rules of 2008 is going to create anomalous situation and going to disturb the percentage of reservation provided of SC/st and OBC category candidates in the Post Graduate courses. He has submitted that in-service and open examination candidates should have been treated as one class only, consequently the seats of in-service ST candidates, if remain vacant should have been filled by ST category open examination candidates, that would have maintained the percentage of the reservation for ST category and for other categories in the colleges. There was no justifiable reason to depart from the rules of the year 2007 which contained the provision as per the case set up by the petitioner. The Rules 1. 20. 9 and 1. 20. 10 of the Rules of 2008 are quoted below :-