(1.) In this batch of petitions the controversy veers round the admission to Post-graduate Courses in the three Government Medical Colleges of the State. For the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) Applications in the prescribed forms were invited for selection of candidates for Post-Graduate Courses leading to M.D./ M.S. Degree and Higher Specialities Courses, 1996 available in the three Government Medical Colleges of the State. The last date of receipt of application forms was 30-5-1996. (In these matters, as there is no grievance with regard to admission to Higher Specialities courses, we have not referred to any clause of the prospectus dealing with that course). As prescribed under clause 9 of the prospectus a competitive entrance examination was hld on 16-6-1996 to fill up 184 seats in the PostGraduate Courses (91 seats for direct candidates and 93 seats for in-service candidates). The break-up of the seats as indicated in clause 5.1 of the prospectus is extracted hereunder : Courses.GeneralS. C. (8%)S. T. (12%)Physically handicappedTotal M.D./ M.S.P.G. Courses.Direct72711191In-service74711193 Clause 11.2 of the prospectus provided that candidates securing less than 50% marks (40% marks in case of S. C./S. T.) in the enrance examination would not be considered for admission and their names would not be included in the merit list. On 3-7-1996 the result was published containing a list of candidates to have qualified in the extrance examination. All the seats allotted to direct candidates were filled up from the merit list but all the 93 seats ear-marked for in-service candidates, however, could not be filled up because of no-availability of eligible candidates securing the minimum prescribed marks. As a result, 37 seats (20 general and 17 reserved) have remained unfilled. During the pendency of these petitions, the Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department in letter No. 34095 dated 22-8-1996 communicated its decision that the seats of in-service quota which have remained vacant due to want of qualified in-service candidates are to be filled up by direct candidates on merit basis under different categories like general, S. C., S. T. and physically handicapped. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the said Government decision at this stage which reads as follows :
(3.) In the factual back-drop as indicated above, these, petitions have come to be filed claiming different reliefs, O. J. C. No. 8789 of 1996 has been filed challenging the cut-off date i.e. 31-3-1996 fixed for fulfilling the eligibility requirements. In some of the petitions, in-service candidates are the petitioners. They have challenged the validity of clause 11.2 of the prospectus which prescribed 50% (40% for S. C. and S. T.) as qualifying marks. According to them, no qualifying marks should be prescribed for them and in any case the unfilled (vacant) in-service seats should be made available to them without insisting upon the minimum qualifying marks. In some of the petitions direct candidates are the petitioners. They want that the unfilled in-service seats should be made available to them. In some of the petitions, grievance hat been raised by direct general candidates that there should not be any reservation for S. C., S. T. and Physically Handicapped persons for the unfilled inservice seats. In Some of the petitions, selected in-service candidates are petitioners who pray that the 17 left-over reserved seats of their category should be thrown open to general candidates instead of carrying over the same to direct candidates as per the government decision dated 22-8-1996. There are petitions filed by direct candidates belonging to the reserved category. They have prayed for a direction to utilise the left over in-service reserved seats by selecting them on the basis of merit. Their grievance, however, stands mitigated in view of the decision of the government dated 22-5-1996 which was taken during the pendency of the petitions. In some of the petitions, allegation has been made that on account of wrong, confusing or ambiguous questions and/or incorrect model answers, the result of the examination was vitiated.