ANJAR MUHAMMAD TAPADAR (DR.) Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department appearing for all the respondents. Also heard Shri I. Rafique, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed the I.A. No. 457/2022 for impleadment as party respondent no. 5, 6 & 7.

(2.) The petitioner is an aspirant for the Post Graduate Course in Medical Science. In 2015, the petitioner had obtained his MBBS from the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. On 19/1/2022, a notice was issued by the DME, Assam for counseling for admission into 50 % of Post Graduate Seats in the Medical Colleges of Assam under the State Quota for the Session 2021 to be held as per the Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission of Post Graduate Course) Rules, 2006 as amended upto 2012. The said notice was issued pursuant to an order dtd. 19/1/2022, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 211 / 2022, the subject matter of which was challenging the vires of the Rules of 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a notification dtd. 1/12/2021, wherein the name of the petitioner figures against Serial No. 14. By the said notification, issued by the Department, no objection was conveyed for the named officers for appearing in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination. The Counseling was accordingly held and in the list dtd. 30/1/2022, the petitioner was shown to be selected and his name reflected against Serial No. 431.

(3.) On the same date, an Educational Notice dtd. 30/1/2022 was issued by the DME, scheduling the dates for admission as 1/2/2022 and 2/2/2022. On the next date i.e. 31/1/2022, a notice was published by the DME fixing 4/2/2022 as the date for verification of the documents. However, in the Admission Notice dtd. 4/2/2022, published by the DME, the name of the petitioner was missing, though no discernible reasons were assigned for such non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner. However, the petitioner could unofficially learn that in the understanding of the authorities, the petitioner did not complete the requirement of 5 years service in rural areas in the State which the pre-condition for availing the State Quota.