SHAILU MANGAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case relates to admission to the seats allocated for in-service candidates in the Medical Post Graduate courses in the Medical Colleges under the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) IN exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 of the Madhya pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Sanstha Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1973, the State government has made the rules relating to admission to Post Graduate Medical (MD and MS) courses and Post Graduate Diploma and Dental (MDS) courses in the Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh, under the state Government called the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules 2008' ). In the Rules 2008, 20% of the total seats in Post Graduate Medical degree and Diploma Courses have been allocated for in-service candidates and for these seats only in-service candidates could apply and on the basis of their position in merit list separately prepared in-service candidates were to be called for counselling and given admission in a Post Graduate Medical Courses in one of the colleges under the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner who is working in the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Directorate as an Assistant surgeon applied as an in-service candidate and took the entrance examination and stood 11th in the merit list of general category in-service candidates and was called for counselling held during 27-5-2008 to 31-5-2008 but was refused admission on the ground that Rule 1. 2 (d) of the Rules 2008 defines an in-service candidate to mean a Medical Officer of the Public Health and Family Welfare department, who is serving under the Government of Madhya Pradesh on regular or contract basis, but the petitioner was working as an Assistant Surgeon in the ESI Directorate and was not working in the Public Health and Family welfare Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for declaring the definition of 'in-service candidate' in Rule 1. 2 (d) of the Rules 2008 as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) MR. Aditya Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice Tendolkar (AIR 1958 SC 538), the supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind by the Court in determining the validity of statute on ground of violation of Article 14 and has held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. He submitted that the Supreme court has further held in Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra), that to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. He submitted that the Assistant Surgeons working in the ESI Department and the Medical Officers of the Public Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh perform the same duties and functions and therefore cannot be grouped into two different classes for the purpose of giving opportunities for admission to post Graduate Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges under the Government of Madhya Pradesh. He further submitted that the classification of Assistant surgeons working in ESI Department and Medica1 Officers of the Public Health and Family Welfare Department into two different classes and giving the benefit of in-service candidate only to Medical Officers of the Public Health and Family welfare Department does not satisfy the twin tests of reasonable classification laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra ). He cited an unreported decision in State of M. P. and another Vs. Dr. A. K. Singhal, in which the Supreme Court has taken a view that the Assistant Surgeons working in public Health and Family Welfare Department and the ESI Department carry on similar and identical duties and the Government must act fairly and impartially to all its employees and give them equal opportunities otherwise the classification would be unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. He submitted that the definition of 'in- service candidate' in Rule 1. 2 (d) of the Rules, 2008 is, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.