DR. SUNIL KUMAR KAR Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ petition challenged the Clause 6.2.1 of the Prospectus prepared for the Postgraduate Medical Section, 2012 as the same is contrary to the guidelines prescribed under Clause 9.1 (b) of the Medical Council of India Regulations. Therefore, he has prayed this Court to strike down the said Clause and further issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to treat him as in-service candidate taking into account the period of service he has rendered in the tribal/rural/backward areas as per the MCI Guideline and may be admitted to the PG Medical Course for the year, 2012 urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) In this case, a Miscellaneous Petition is filed by five intervenors, who wanted to come on record, as they all are in-service candidates and pursuant to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.08.2012 after quashing the weightage mark clause given to the direct candidates, another list dated 07.08.2012 was published and the name of the petitioner finds a place at SI. No.336. It is stated therein the misc. case that the petitioner all along participated as direct candidate and now only because his name does not find a favourable position in the list of direct candidates, he approached this Court to include his name in the list of in-service candidates on the basis of judgment dated 11.04.2012 passed in W.A. No.78 of 2012. If his name is included in the in-service category, position of in-service candidates would be disturbed. He has all along participated in the admission process as direct candidate without any complaint about the provision of Regulation or Prospectus and now he cannot claim to be included in the in-service list or challenge the terms of the Clause 6.2.1 of the Prospectus when the admission process for the academic year 2012 is almost over. As the petitioner is a fence sitter he knows very well that in the direct category there will be few persons with tribal service record. Therefore, he preferred to stay in direct category and enjoy his position at Sl. No.23 in the list prepared and published for direct candidates on 10.04,2012 and waited till the judgment dated 03.08.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the Civil Appeal Nos.5705-5706 of 2012 and the list dated 07.08.2012, and now he has come before this Court. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in this writ petition and the intervenors are to be protected and allowed to implead themselves as parties to the proceeding.

(3.) Having regard to the averments made in the miscellaneous petition, they have pleaded that if the petitioner's prayers are granted their ranking will be affected and they will be deprived of getting seat in the appropriate subject for which they are legally entitled to as per their ranking in the merit list; therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to these proceedings and they are allowed to come on record. Registry is directed to implead the intervenor petitioners as additional opposite parties to the case and register the miscellaneous petition as misc. case giving a number.