NEHA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question raised in this batch of writ petitions is whether a demonstrator should be treated as an in-service candidate for admission to the quota of seats allocated in Postgraduate Medical Courses in the 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 under the State Government in the State of madhya Pradesh, 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 seats in the Post Graduate Medical courses in the colleges under the Government of Madhya Pradesh have been allocated for in-service candidates and in Rule 1. 2 (d) of the Rules, 2008, an 'in-service candidate' has been defined 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. The Rules, 2008 provide that on the basis of performance in the common entrance examination for all the candidates, a separate merit list is to be prepared for in-service candidates and on the basis of their merit position, in-service candidates are to be called for counselling for admission to the 20% seats allocated to in- service candidates in the postgraduate medical courses in different colleges under the Government of madhya Pradesh. The petitioners who are medical graduates and are working as demonstrators in different Medical Colleges under the Government of Madhya pradesh and are not working as Medical Officers of the Public Health and family Welfare Department, thus, cannot be considered for admission to the quota of 20% seats allocated for in-service candidates and can only be considered for admission to the open seats as per their merit position in the merit list. Aggrieved by the definition of 'in-service candidate' in Rule 1. 2 (d) of the Rules 2008, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for declaring the definition of 'in-service candidate' in the rules 2008 as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) MR. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 4608/2008 and 4834/2008, Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4071/2008 and Mr. Aditya sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3056/2009 and 3069/2009, submitted that the demonstrators are also in the service of the State government and are Government servants to whom the Fundamental Rules are applicable. Mr. Sanghi submitted that in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC538, the Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind by the Court in determining the validity of a statute on the 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 but in order 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 although there is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of the statute, this presumption cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. He submitted that the only justification given in the return filed by the respondents is that in the M. P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course entrance Examination Rules, 2007 (for short 'the 2007 Rules'), demonstrators were treated as in-service candidates but Rule 9. 2 (a) of the 2007 Rules provided that the demonstrator can undergo postgraduate course on the subject in which they are working, but the Division Bench of this Court has found Rule 9. 2 (a) of the 2007 Rules ultra vires in the case of Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patna Vs. State of m. P. , ILR 2007 916. He submitted that this cannot be a valid reason for excluding demonstrators from the definition of 'in-service candidate' under the rules 2008.